E99 




.S23 B4 


^^H 




l^^l 



s . . , ^ 


















"->, 









o 

*^^/r?7^ " 









^^!^ ^^. 






^vr%'^ "^ 



:f-^H^^-^^ 



,0- 












A 



A 










A V ■ « -(O A, 1 o vi^ V ♦ 






^■^>^y .^'^ 



> 



A 






^ 



%. </ ^iv^ 



^ .<^' ^^^^'^ ''I 




0^ c ° " " 












■V^*" 









.*^ ..•■_ 



^_^ 
■^ 






V 



^ 



.0 ^ 



o 






I 



N? 















X o ^ ■ . 

.. <J> * ° « o ' V 9^ * • ' ■ 









^ O " O 



-^o 









^^ -^^ ^^Vi^/ .^^ ^^^ •;-. r ~ ' 



- '^'■.^:£r?^ 



% ^0'' .c 



o 
o 















,0 



^\.^ 












-' ° 1^// >;v\ \\V" c," 






'•^- 



'<7\ 









^"^^^ 



.A^ ,„. ^^ -'^ o.<^ ^-^^ '''•^'' A<^ 



o 






v^. 



-^^^ 



^<^ .,, % '"-' ^^\„^ 



ov ' '■- ''-r:^;^- ^^0^ ;-^"~ ~ ^: ^^ov ." ''' 












BEFORE THE 



GommissiODeF ol iDHian Bifairs (or investigation 



UNDER SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE 
PRESIDENT. 



THE SAC AND FOX INDIANS OF THE MISSIS- 
SIPPI, IN IOWA, 

Claimants. 
vs. 
THE SAC AND FOX INDIANS OF THE MISSIS- 
SIPPI, IN OKLAHOMA, AND THE UNITED 
STATES, 

Defendants. 



For the Adjustment of Claims Arising from Un- 
equal Apportionment of the Annuities of the 
Confederated Tribes of Sac and Fox Indians 
of the Mississippi, Between the Two Branches 
of the Tribes. 



THE JURISDICTIONAL STATUS OF THE CASE. 



The Sac and Fox Indians of the Mississippi, residing- in 
the State of Iowa, after faiHng to secure adjustment of 
their claims by the Department of the Interior, addressed 
a memorial to Congress, praying for relief by legislation. 



(Senate Mis. Doc. No. 48, 53d Congress, 3d ses.) Con- 
gress promptly enacted a provision of law in the Indian Ap- 
propriation Act of March 2, 1895, (-8 Stat. 903), requiring 
the Secretary of the Interior to examine the claims and to 
make report thereon to Congress. The Secretary of the 
Interior made report, as set out in Senate Document No. 
167, 54th Congress, ist session; his conclusions were ad- 
verse to the First and Second claims, and favorable upon the 
Third claim. The Third claim has been adjusted upon the 
basis of said report, under provision of law therefor found 
in the Indian Appropriation Act of June 10, 1896, (29 Stat. 

330- 

The claimant Indians appealed to Congress from the ad- 
verse report made by the Secretary of the Interior on the 
First and Second claims, pointing out that no such consid- 
eration of the facts in the matter had been given, as contem- 
plated by the law, and that the adverse report was based on 
technical and inequitable construction of laws and treaties, 
depriving the claimant Indians of what justly and equitably 
belonged to them. 

At the time of making said appeal, the claimant Indians 
also called attention to the fact that the sum of $500.00 per 
annum, provided by the fourth article of the treaty of 1842, 
to be paid to the principal chief of the Foxes, had been with- 
held from him since 1855. Payment of the annual amount 
due him under that provision of the treaty was resumed in 
1900. 

This appeal was under consideration by the appropriate 
committees of Congress for a number of years. In response 
to a resolution of the House all of the facts on the subject 
were secured by Congress from the Treasury Department. 
(See. H. R. Doc. No. 38, 57th Congress, ist ses.) The 
Committee on Indian Affairs of the House of Representa- 
tives made an exhaustive report on the case — (H. R. Re- 
port No. 3022, 59th Congress, ist session, subsequently con- 

Si7 transfer 
24 ;a 1907 



curred in by Senate Report No. 3621), and submitted there- 
with a bill. H. R. 10 133, providing for the adjustment of 
the claims for past unequal distribution of the annuities be- 
tween the two branches of the tribes, and for correcting- the 
evils complained of, so as to prevent injustice to the claim- 
ant Indians in the future apportionment of the annuities. 
That bill was passed by Congress. 

When the bill was before the President for approval, a 
veto thereof was recommended by the Secretary of the In- 
terior. The President, on the other hand, was urged 
against such action. He gave a hearing on the subject ; but, 
as neither the Secretary of the Interior nor the Commis- 
sioner of Indian Affairs could be present, being distant, he 
finally determined to veto the bill, but, in his veto message, 
informed Congress that he had directed the Acting Com- 
missioner of Indian Affairs to have an immediate and thor- 
ough investigation made of the matter, and that a report 
of such investigation be presented to him ; saying further : 

"and after the report of this investigation has reached me I 
shall be prepared to give my assent to any bill which shall do 
justice both to the Indians in Iowa and the Indians in Okla- 
homa." 

The vetoed bill is yet pending before Congress, subject co 
the Constitutional right of that body to pass it over the veto. 

It is, at the same time, pending before the President, who 
has required a more thorough investigation of the claims to 
be made, for his fuller information on the subject. Con- 
gress will no doubt await the result of the investigation 
ordered by the President. 

In this situation, and with the evident desire on the part 
of all concerned to do what justice shall demand, there is 
hope for a righteous and final adjustment of the claims. 

The counsel for the Oklahoma branch of the tribes, have 
devoted much time and labor to the preparation of a de- 
fense, since the bill was vetoed and have presented a brief 



on behalf of their chents, wherein they have contended 
against the claims on technical grounds. A copy of that 
brief was served on the counsel for the claimant Indians on 
December 15, 1906. 

There is much in the brief of counsel for the Oklahoma 
branch of the tribes that challenges discussion, and that 
prompts correction or the more accurate setting forth of the 
facts; but discussion of matters not essential to a clear un- 
derstanding of the claims under consideration will only 
consume time, and encumber this brief with much unneces- 
sary material. The intelligence of the reviewing officers 
will enable them to discriminate between what is material 
and what is not. In order that the report on the subject 
may be made to the President at the earliest possible date, 
so that he may have time for its consideration, and the Con- 
gress may be enabled to take action on the claims at the 
present session, little time is allowed for making reply to 
said brief. 

THE CLAIMS. 

The claims of the Sac and Fox Indians of the Mississippi, 
residing in the State of Iowa, grow out of the failure of the 
Department of the Interior to apportion and allow to them 
their distributive shares of the moneys appropriated by 
Congress annually for fulfilling treaty stipulations with the 
Confederated tribes of the Sac and Fox Indians of the 
Mississippi. The claims are by one branch of the tribes 
against the other. The guardian of the Indians, charged 
with the care of the estate of the wards, is asked to make 
the adjustment, as the laws and facts show right and jus- 
tice to require. 

The claims are three in number, and are as follows : 

First. For their proportionate shares of the annuities, 
according to their numbers, from 1855, to 1866, inclusive, 



during which period no portion of the tribal annuities were 
allowed or paid to them, or expended for their benefit. 

Second. For amounts due them by reason of the unequal 
apportionment of the tribal annuities between the two 
branches of the tribes, according to their numbers, from 
1867, to the present time, and until the unequal apportion- 
ment is stopped. 

Third. For amount of the claim of the principal chief 
of the Foxes, for the annuity of $500.00 provided by article 
4 of the treaty of 1842, to be paid to him annually, from 
1855, to 1899, amounting to $22,500.00. 

The amounts of the First and Second claims are purposely 
omitted, as they depend on whether the claimant Indians 
shall be allowed on one basis or another, as is hereinafter 
made to appear. 

It is proper to state here that the claimant Indians, in 
their first memorial to Congress, (Senate Mis Doc. No. 48, 
53d Congress, 3d ses.), desired that their right to share in 
the '-annuities and other moneys inuring to the Sac and 
Fox Indians of the Mississippi under their treaties," should 
be investigated. Congress promptly enacted the following 
provision of law, in the Indian Appropriation Act of March 
2, 1895: 

"That the Secretary of the Interior be, and is hereby, 
directed to examine the claim of the Sac and Fox Indians 
of Mississippi, now residing in the State of Iowa, as set 
forth in their memorial presented to Congress (Senate Mis- 
cellaneous Document Numbered Forty-eight, Fifty-third 
Congress, third session), for the payment of annuities and 
other sums from the tribal funds of said Sac and Fox In- 
dians of Mississippi and any and all claims of that portion 
of the tribe residing in Iowa, and to ascertain whether, un- 
der any treaties or acts of Congress, any amount is justly 
due them as a portion of said tribe from those of said tribe 
now in Oklahoma by reason of any unequal distribution of 
tribal annuities, land funds, or funds from other sources; 
and if so, how much, giving full opportunity to all parties 



in interest to be heard, and to report his conclusions to Con- 
gress at the next assembhng thereof." (28 Stat. 896.) 

The report of the Secretary of the Interior, made to Con- 
gress, on the claims, (Senate Doc. No. 167), treated in the 
First and Second Claims of what are technically or com- 
monly termed annukics only. The appeal to Congress from 
that adverse report, now under consideration, has proceeded 
with the matter as set out in the report of the Secretary of 
the Interior. Therefore, this brief will deal with the moneys 
known as annuities only, except in so far as will be neces- 
sary to show how much other moneys of the tribes have 
gone exclusively to the benefit of the Oklahoma branch of 
the tribes. 

The counsel for the Oklahoma branch have set out in 
their brief their grounds for defense, which may be sum- 
marized as follows : 

I. That the treaties involved "make the annuities pay- 
able to the tribe — the Sac and Fox Indians of the Mis- 
sissippi." 

2 The method of payment is left to Executive discretion. 

3. The payments made under Executive regulations can- 
not be questioned. 

4. The Executive interpretation of treaties and laws is 
binding upon all concerned. 

5. The claims of the Claimant Indians are contrary to 
the treaties and laws, as interpreted by the Department of 
the Interior, and, therefore, should not be allowed. 

6. That if "the officers in control of Indian Affairs failed 
to make proper interpretation of the treaties and laws, then 
it must go without saying that the restitution should be made 
from public funds and not from Indian funds," and the 
matter should be sent to the courts for final determination. 



7 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 

The Sac and Fox tribes of Indians were confederated at 
an early period of the history of this country. Such rela- 
tion is shown to have existed at the time the treaty was 
made with them in 1804. (7 Stat. 84.) The Indians bearing 
those tribal names formed two confederations ; one is known 
by the title of "The Sac and Fox Indians of the Mississippi," 
and the other is known by the title of "The Sac and Fox 
Indians of the Missouri." These two separate bodies have 
no relation with each other in treaty matters. It is "The 
Sac and Fox Indians of the Mississippi" that are concerned 
in the matter under consideration. 

The Essential Provisions of Treaties and Laws. 

Whether the treaties "make the annuities payable to the 
trihe," as claimed by counsel for the Oklahoma branch, or 
to the Indians of the Confederated tribes, as claimed by 
counsel for the Claimant Indians, will best be shown by the 
provisions of the treaties on the subject, the essential parts 
whereof will here be set out for easy reference : 

For "goods of the value of one thousand dollars (six 
hundred of which are intended for the Sacs and four hun- 
dred for the Foxes).' 

(Art. 3, Treaty of 1804, 7 Stat. 84. Kappler, Trea- 
ties, p. 74.) 



u ^°^' "^"""ities * * * to the said Sock tribe, five 
hundred dollars, and to the Fox tribe five hundred dollars, 
annually for the term of ten succeeding years." 

(Art. 3, Treaty of 1824, 7 Stat. 229. Kappler, Trea- 
ties, p. 207.) 



To pay to the Sacs, three thousand dollars, and to the 
l^oxes three thousand dollars annually for ten successive 
years at such place, or places on the Mississippi or Missouri 



8 

as may be most convenient to said tribes, either in money, 
merchandize, or domestic animals, at their option." 

(Art. 4, Treaty of 1830, 7 Stat. 328. Kappler, Trea- 
ties, p. 305.) 



"To pay to said confederated tribes, annually, for thirty 
successive years, the first payment to be made in Septem- 
ber of the next year, the sum of twenty thousand dollars in 
specie." 

(Art. 3, Treaty of 1832, 7 Stat. 374. Kappler, Trea- 
ties, p. 349.) 



"In consideration of the cessions contained in the pre- 
ceding article, the United States agree to the following 
stipulations on their part:" 

(Then follow seven specific stipulations in Aritcle 2, for 
payment of money for various purposes, amounting in the 
aggregate, to $177,000.00, of which $100,000.00 was for 
tribal debts.) 

"Eighth. To invest the sum of two hundred thousand 
dollars ($200,000) in safe State stocks, and to guarantee 
to the Indians, an annual income of not less than five per 
cent., the said interest to be paid to them each year, in the 
manner annuities are paid, at such time and place, and in 
money or goods as the tribe may direct.* * Provided, 
That it may be competent for the President to direct that a 
portion of the same may, with the consent of the Indians, 
be applied to education, or other purposes calculated to im- 
prove them." 

(Treaty of 1837, 7 Stat. 540. Kappler, Treaties, p, 

495-) 



Under the treaty of 1842, the Confederated tribes of 
Sacs and Foxes ceded to the United States all their land in 
Iowa, stipulating to remain three years on a portion of it; 
and thereafter to remove to a new reservation to be desig- 
nated for them by the President, which land was designated 
in Kansas. 

"Article II. In consideration of the cession contained in 
the preceding article, the United States agree to pay an- 



niially to the Sacs and Foxes, an interest of five per centum 
upon the sum of eight hundred thousand dollars, and to 
pay their debts mentioned in the schedule annexed to and 
made part of this treaty, amounting to the sum of two hun- 
dred and fifty-eight thousand, five hundred and sixty-six dol- 
lars and thirty-four cents, * * * * *_" 

In the Second sub-division of said article two of the 
treaty, provision is made for the removal and maintenance 
of the tools and materials of the blacksmith and gunsmith 

shops, provided for in treaty of 1836, "for the benefit of the 
Sacs and Foxes ; one blacksmith's shop and one gunsmith's 
shop to be employed exclusively for the Sacs, and one of 
each to be employed exclusively for the Foxes." 

Further provisions of said Second sub-division of article 
two are for removing and re-establishing said shops, for 
the same uses, 

''when the tribes shall remove to the land to be assigned 
them by the President of the United States, under the pro- 
visions of this treaty." 

''Article 4. It is agreed that each of the principal chiefs 
of the Sacs and Foxes, shall hereafter receive the sum of 
five hundred dollars annually, out of the annuities payable 
to the tribe, to be used and expended by them for such pur- 
poses as they may think proper, with the approbation of 
their agent." 

(Treaty of 1842. 7 Stat. 596. Kappler, Treaties, p. 
546.) 



The members of the Confederated tribes moved to the 
land in Kansas, designated by the President for them, under 
the treaty of 1842; they continued to reside there, until, in 
1854, the Foxes of the Confederated tribes, having become 
dissatisfied with their residence there, on account of health, 
and because of management of tribal affairs, began to re- 
turn, in considerable numbers, to their former home in 
Iowa, which they considered far better suited for their 
health, and for their general well being. Those first re- 



lO 

turning to Iowa reported to the Governor of that State, 
supposing him then to be the representative of the United 
States, and ex-officio Superintendent of Indian Affairs in 
said State, as was the case when they left it. They soon 
found that they could lay claim to none of the land on which 
they formerly resided in Iowa. Their condition — homeless 
and without means for support, was brought to the attention 
of the legislature of the State, and that body enacted a law, 
dated July 15, 1856, permitting the said Indians to reside 
in the State ; requiring the sheriff of the county in which 
they were living, to make a census of them ; and requesting 
the Governor of the State to advise the Secretary of War 
of the whereabouts of the Indians, and request him to cause 
their annuities to be paid to them there. The full text of 
said law may be found in the annual report of the Commis- 
sioner of Indian Affairs for 189T, page 681. 

Having, as they supposed, adjusted their change of home 
with the proper representative of the United States, and re- 
ceived sanction for the change, they immediately began to 
purchase land whereon to reside. They are now the owners 
of over 3,000 acres of valuable land in the State of Iowa, 
purchased with their own means. 

As thorough search as was possible to the Claimant In- 
dians, not having access to the archives of the Government, 
has failed to discover that the request upon the Secretary of 
War, for payment of the annuities of the Indians to them in 
Iowa, was made by the Governor of that State. The De- 
partment of the Interior, appears not to have found any 
record of such request. Though a census of them does not 
appear to have been made by the sheriff of the county in 
which they were, the Governor had them enumerated, and 
their condition investigated, and a report was made to him, 
as stated by the Secretary of the Interior in letter to the 
Secretary of the Treasury, dated September 4, 1900. (See 
H. R. Doc. No. 38, pp, 20, 21.) 



II 

In that letter Mr. Secretary Hitchcock informed the Sec- 
retary of the Treasury that : 

"This census was never taken." 

"Mr. George L. Davenport, under dace of September 12, 
1862, reported to Governor Kirkwood, of Iowa, by whom 
he had been appointed to examine into the condition of the 
Sacs and Foxes then residing in the State, that they num- 
bered at that time 69 men, 65 women, and 51 children, or 
a total of 185, who had returned from Kansas Territory 
eight years ago and brought with them $800 saved out of 
their annuities for that year. * * * They have not re- 
ceived any annuities for seven years." 

Yet the Chief of the Oklahoma branch pretends that they 
returned to Kansas each year and drew their annuities. 
Further on in this brief will be shown how far short he has 
come in an attempt, with ample time given him and his 
counsel for the purpose, to "make good" his allegation. 

Just here we will notice one of many immaterial matters 
dwelt upon by counsel, as errors, "misleading quotations," 
etc. 

Counsel, on page 34 of their brief, seek to show that the 
statement by Claimant Indians, that Indians leaving their 
reservations and becoming citizens of the United States, 
could not be deprived of their annuities, under any regula- 
tions of the Indian Bureau is misleading. The Claimant 
Indians cited in support of this, two laws which made the ap- 
plication of such regulations impossible, and which showed 
the purpose generally of the law-making power on the sub- 
ject ; one of said laws is the sixth section of the General Al- 
lotment Act of February 8, 1887. (24 Stat. 390), which, 
counsel boldly stated : 

"It declares them citizens, but says nothing about annui- 
ties either directly or indirectly." 

The words of so much of that law as is pertinent are as 
follows : 



12 

''without in any manner impairing or otherwise affecting 
the right of any such Indian to tribal or other property." 

The undersigned, having had somewhat to do with the 
administration of Indian Affairs, has labored under the im- 
pression that the words "tribal or other property" in that 
law, included annuities, and all other elements of the tribal 
estate, in whatever form that estate existed. 

This is a sample of the many errors charged upon the 
Claimant Indians in the statement of their case in their 
memorials. We admit no "misleading quotations," or "mis- 
statement" of facts, in any material matters. The use of 
the figures, 830, as number of the Oklahoma branch, pointed 
out by counsel, on page 13, instead of the figures 513, the 
former number being of the whole tribes, was in no manner 
misleading; that mistake did not even mislead counsel. It 
was not of sufficient importance to be noticed by the De- 
partment, of by the committees of Congress. 

In 1859, a treaty was negotiated with those of the tribes 
remaining on the reservation in Kansas, whereby they ceded 
to the United States about 300,000 acres of that reserva- 
tion. (See annual report of Indian Bureau, for 1859, p. 
17.) The lands were to be sold to settlers; the proceeds, as 
stipulated, were to be used for the industrial advancement 
of the members of the tribes on the diminished resei^vation ; 
and the debts of the tribes, and of the individuals were to 
be paid ; these purposes were to be accomplished, even if it 
should be necessary to use a portion of moneys arising under 
other treaties. That treaty also contained these stipulations : 

"Article 6. ***** * And, in order to ren- 
der unnecessary further treaty engagements or arrange- 
ments hereafter with the United States, it is hereby agreed 
and stipulated that the President, with the assent of Con- 
gress, shall have full power to modify or change any of the 
provisions of former treaties with the Sacs and Foxes of 



13 

the Mississippi in such manner and to whatever extent he 
may judge to be necessary and expedient for their welfare 
and best interests. 

"Article 7. The Sacs and Foxes of the Mississippi parties 
to this agreement, are anxious that all the members of their 
tribe shall participate in the advantages herein provided for 
respecting their improvement and civilization, and to that 
end to induce all that are now separated to rejoin and re- 
unite with them. It is therefore agreed that, as soon as 
practicable, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs shall cause 
the necessary proceedings to be adopted to have them noti- 
fied of this agreement and its advantages and to induce them 
to come in and unite with their brethren; and to enable 
them to do so, and to sustain themselves for a reasonable 
time thereafter, such assistance shall be provided for them 
at the expense of the tribe as may be actually necessary for 
that purpose. Provided, hozccvcr, That those who do not 
rejoin and permanently reunite themselves with the tribe 
within one year from the date of the ratification of this 
treaty shall not be entitled to the benefits of any of its stipu- 
lations." 

(Treaty of 1859. 15 Stat. 467. Kappler, Treaties, 
p. 796.) 

The said treaty of 1859, was not proclaimed until July 9, 
i860. 

The forfeiture, by article 7, is limited to benefits arising 
under that treaty only. No claim has been made under that 
treaty. 

The Claimant Indians in Iowa have no knowledge of any 
steps taken by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to make 
its provisions known to them. 

The Civil War came on about that time, and weightier 
matters, than the adjustment of the inter-tribal affairs of 
Indians, engaged the time and attention of the public offi- 
cials. The members of the tribes removed to Iowa bided 
their time. They neither required nor received supervision 
by any agent of the United States, nor any expense for their 



14 

support or management, during those years of trouble in the 
country. They earned their own support, and waited for 
more favorable time and opportunity to press their claims 
for their tribal rights. They received absolutely nothing 
of the annuities or other moneys appropriated by Congress 
for fulfilling treaties with the confederated tribes during the 
period from 1855 to 1866, inclusive. No help in any form 
was received from the Government during that time. They 
ask that they be paid their just proportionate shares of their 
tribal moneys, according to their numbers for said period. 

They do not know the amount realized from the land 
ceded under the treaty of 1859, nor the disposition made 
thereof. The land belonged to tlie Indians of confederated 
tribes of the Sacs and Foxes of the Mississippi. Those in 
Iowa were not parties to that treaty ; and they have received 
nothing of the benefits from said proceeds arising from dis- 
posal of said lands. While they have not made any claim 
for their shares thereof, they do not desire to be understood 
as conceding that anything in the treaty of 1859, or in any 
prior treaties or laws, give any sufiicient or just warrant 
for depriving them of their righi to share in said moneys, 
according to their numbers. 

The Civil War having terminated, a treaty was negotiat- 
ed with the Sacs and Foxes in Kansas, for cession of all of 
their lands in Kansas, the Indians to remove to another re- 
servation in the Indian Territory, now a part of the Terri- 
tory of Oklahoma. When this treaty, concluded in Feb- 
ruary of 1867, was before the Senate for ratification, the 
condition of that branch of the tribe in Iowa came up for 
consideration ; it was amended by the Senate in many par- 
ticulars. The whole of article 21 was inserted as an amend- 
ment by the Senate. The treaty provided for cession of all 
of the lands of the confederated tribes in Kansas to the 
United States, for payment of certain indebtedness of the 
tribes from the proceeds of the cession ; payment of re- 



15 

moval and other expenses therefrom ; and providing that the 
balance 

"shall be added to their invested funds, and five per cent, 
interest paid thereon in the same manner as the interest of 
their present funds is now paid." (Article 3.) 

As the members of the tribe, residing in Iowa, have here- 
tofore made claim for their proportionate share of the 
amount paid by the United States for the land thus ceded, 
and said claim has been adjusted and paid, under provision 
of law in the Indian Appropriation Act of June 10, 1896, 
(29 Stat. 331), it is not necessary to cite from said treaty 
of 1867 any provisions not required for the present consider- 
ation. Those considered essential are as follows : 

"Article 8. No part of the invested funds of the tribe 
or of any moneys w4iich may be due to them under the 
provisions of previous treaties, nor of any moneys provided 
to be paid to them by this treaty, shall be used in payment 
of any claims against the tribe accruing previous to the rati- 
fication of this treaty unless herein expressly provided for." 

"Article 9. In order to promote the civilization of 
the tribe, one section of land, convenient to the residence 
of the agent, shall be selected by said agent, with the 
approval of the Commissioner of Indian -Affairs, and set 
apart far a manual-labor school ; and there shall also be set 
apart, from the money to be paid to the tribe under this 
treaty, the sum of ten thousand dollars for the erection of 
the necessary school buildings and dwelling for teacher, and 
the annual amount of five thousand dollars shall be set apart 
from the income of their funds after the erection of such 
school buildings, for the support of the school; and after 
settlement of the tribe upon their new reservation, the sum 
of five thousand dollars of the income of their funds may 
be annually used, under the direction of the chiefs, in the 
support of their national government, out of which last- 
mentioned amount the sum of five hundred dollars shall be 
annually paid to each of the chiefs." 

"Article 10. The United States agree to pay annually, 
for five years after the removal of the tribe, the sum of 



i6 

fifteen hundred dollars for the support of a physician and 
purchase of medicines, and also the sum of three hundred 
and fifty dollars annually for the same time, in order that 
the tribe may provide itself with tobacco and salt." 

"Article 21. The Sacs and Foxes of the Mississippi, par- 
ties to this agreement, being anxious that all the members of 
their tribe shall participate in the advantages to be derived 
from the investment of their national funds, sales of lands, 
and so forth, it is therefore agreed that, as soon as practi- 
cable, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs shall cause the 
necessary proceedings to be adopted, to have such members 
of the tribe as may be absent notified of this agreement and 
its advantages, and to induce them to come in and perman- 
ently unite with their brethren; and that no part of the 
funds arising from or due the nation under this or previous 
treaty stipulations shall be paid to any bands or parts of 
bands who do not permanently reside on the reservation 
set apart to them by the Government in the Indian Terri- 
tory, as provided in this treaty, except those residing in the 
State of Iowa ; and it is further agreed that all money ac- 
cruing from this or former tribes (treaties) now due or to 
become said nation, shall be paid them on their reservation 
in Kansas ; and after their removal, as provided in this 
treaty, payment shall be made at their agency, on their lands 
as then located." 

(Treaty of 1867, 15 Stat. 495. Kappler, Treaties, 
P- 95I-) 

Counsel for the Oklahoma branch (pp. 24 and 27), refer 
to Article 8, as a bar to the consideration or payment of these 
claims. That article was enacted to protect the tribal estate 
against the w^asteful practice of paying claims of traders for 
supplies furnished to the Indians on credit. The whole series 
of treaties with the tribes will show that such a pernicious 
practice prevailed; and this practice was one of the griev- 
ances of the Foxes of the tribes. These claims are inter- 
tribal — in the family — and their adjustment and settlement 
from the funds now to the credit of the Oklahoma branch, 
are in no sense obnoxious to said article of tlie treaty. That 



17 

article, like all provisions of any and all Indian treaties, are, 
as hereinafter shown, subject to the will of the law-making 
power of the country especially for doing justice to the 
Indians concerned. 

Counsel, also, on same page, after citing portion of the 
provisions of Article 21, of the treaty, against payment of 
moneys to absent Indians, say : 

"The sole exception herein provided is that the band of 
Sacs and Foxes in Iowa may receive, in the future, in low^a 
their share in the mone}'^ due the nation — the annuities." 

The words so emphasized by counsel will not be found in 
article 21 of the treaty of 1867. 

The provision of the treaty of 1867, in Article 21, pre- 
sences to the Indians in Iowa, all rights under that "or pre- 
vioiis treaty stipulations." Under it there is warrant of au- 
thority for the adjustment of the claims for previous un- 
equal distribution of the annuities, as much as for securing 
to the Indians the subsequent apportionment of their due 
share of the annuities, according to their numbers. 

The various treaties with the confederated tril>es, as cited 
(supra), so far as they show anything on the subject, clear- 
ly indicate that the members of the said confederated 
tribes shall share, not less than in proportion to their num- 
hers, in the moneys of the tribes. 

The $1,000.00 permanent annuity, provided for in treaty 
of 1804, is stipulated as "Six hundred of which are intended 
for the Sacs and four hundred for the Foxes." 

The treaties of 1824 and 1830 treat the two tribes of the 
confederation on an equality, each to have exactly one-half 
of the annuities stipulated for therein. The treaty of 1832, 
provided that an annuity of $20,000.00 for thirty years, 
to "pay to the said confederated tribes." At least 9 instal- 
ments of said annuity fell within the period of the First 
claim under consideration. But the basis of equality is 
maintained throughout the treaties, so far as any propor- 
tions of interest are therein indicated. This will be noted 



i8 

particularly in connection with the provisions for maintain- 
ing shops for gunsmith and blacksmith purposes, "one of 
each to be employed exclusively for the Sacs, and one of 
each to be employed exclusively for the Foxes. (Article II 
of treaty of 1842). The treaty of 1842, provides for the 
payments to "the Sacs and Foxes an interest of five per 
centum upon the sum of eight hundred thousand dollars." 
The treaty of 1837 stipulates for the investment of $200,- 
000.00, "and to guarantee to the Indians, an annual income 
of not less than five per cent, the said interest to be paid to 
them each year, in the manner annuities are paid." In the 
treaty of 1867. the stipulation is "to pay to the Sac and Fox 
Indians." 

The reference by counsel for the Oklahoma branch, to 
treaties of 1804, 1837, and 1842, and saying, in quotations; 
that those treaties : "make the annuities payable to the tribe 
— the Sac and Fox Indians of the MississippiTis not sus- 
tained by the treaties themselves.*^ The foregoing shows 
clearly that there is no warrant for the statement made, or 
for the inference intended. We contend that the moneys ap- 
propriated by Congress for fulfilling the treaties with the 
tribes, were, and are meant by the treaties, and by the laws 
of Congress, for the Indians belonging to the confederated 
tribes, and not to a portion only thereof. 

The Indians in Iowa, being Foxes, have not contended for 
an equal division of the annuities between the Sacs and the 
Foxes ; but for the per capita shares of the members of each 
branch of the tribes, according to the numbers thereof, as 
shown by the annual enrollments. 

THE LAWS FOR PAYMENT TO THE SACS AND 
FOXES IN IOWA, THEIR PROPORTION OF 
ANNUITES ACCORDING TO THEIR NUM- 
BERS. 

In consequence of the amendments made by the Senate 
to said treaty of 1867, it had to go back to the Indians, for 



19 

consent thereto, and it was, therefore, not finally ratified, and 
proclaimed until October 14, 1868. In the meantime', the 
situation and condition of the members of the tribe in Iowa 
having been under consideration by Congress, that body 
enacted the following provision of law, to stop further in- 
justice to that branch of the tribe : 

"That the band of Sacs and Foxes of the Mississippi, now 
m Tamar (Tama) County, Iowa, shall be paid pro rata ac- 
cordmg to their numbers of the annuities, as long as they 
are peaceful and have the assent of the government of Iowa 
to reside in that State." 

(Indian Appropriation Act of March 2. 1867 ia. 
Stat. 507.) 

This law and the treaty of 1867 apply to and include all 
"nozv" in Iowa. 

The Indians have remained peaceful ; and the assent given 
by the legislature of Iowa for them to reside in that State 
has never been withdrawn. 

As compliance with the law of 1867. and beginning with 
that year, the members of the tribe of Sacs and Foxes of 
the Mississippi, residing in Iowa were apportioned from the 
annual sum of $51,000.00 appropriated for the tribal annui- 
ties, the amount of $11,174.66. The remainder was ap- 
portioned to the members of the tribe then in Kansas, sub- 
sequently removed to Oklahoma, $39,825.34. 

Those in Iowa contended that the apportionment made to 
them was not "according to their numbers," as required by 
the law. The Department would not regard their com- 
plaint, but insisted that they accept the amount apportioned 
to them ; they finally refused to accept said amount, protest- 
ing that it was not their pro rata share, according to their 
numbers; they persisted in their refusal of acceptance 
against all urging and persuading, notwithstanding they 
were sorely in need of the money wherewith to buy food, 
clothing, etc., for their suffering families. This situation 



20 

continued for some years. The Interior Department find- 
ing itself unable to compel the Indians to accept the amount 
it had apportioned to them, soug^ht legislative assistance for 
that purpose, and Congress, relying upon the representations 
made to the committees on the subject, enacted the following 
provision of law. 

"That hereafter the Sacs and Foxes of Iowa, shall have 
apportioned to them, from the appropriations for fulfilling 
the stipulations of said treaties, no greater sum thereof than 
that heretofore set apart for them." 

(Indian Appropriation Act of May 17, 1882, 22 
Stat. 78.) 

The combined efforts of both branches of the Government 
failed to bring the Indians in Iowa to accept the amount ap- 
portioned to them. They endured hunger and suffering, 
and heroically faced starvation and death rather than sub- 
mit to what they knew to be injustice. In the midst of it 
all, no cry of Indian depredations or disturbances came from 
the good people of the State of Iowa among whom they re- 
side. 

Thus matters stood, until in 1S84, when both branches of 
the confederated tribes, by delegations, made their represen- 
tations to the proper committees of the two Houses of Con- 
gress. The hearings had, resulted in the enactment of the 
following provision of law : 

"That hereafter the Sacs and Foxes of Iowa shall have ap- 
portioned to them, from the appropriations for fulfilling 
the stipulations of said treaties, their per capita proportion 
of the amount appropriated in this act, subject to provisions 
of treaties with said tribes ; but this shall apply only to the 
Sacs and Foxes now in Iowa : And provided further, That 
this shall apply only to original Sacs and Foxes now in Iowa 
to be ascertained by the Secretary of the Interior." 

(Indian Appropriation Act of July 4, 1884, 23 Stat. 
850 



21 



The law of May 31, 1900, directing- payment to the prin- 
cipal chief in Iowa is as follows: 

"That the Secretary of the Interior is directed to pay to 
Push-e-ten-neke-que, head chief of the Sac and Fox of the 
Mississippi Indians in the State of Iowa, five hundred dol- 
lars per annum during the remainder of his natural life, be- 
ginning with and including the fiscal year nineteen hundred, 
in accordance with the terms of article four of the treaty 
proclaimed March twenty-third, eighteen hundred and 
forty-three. (31 Stat. 245; Kappler, Laws, 701.) 

The various efforts made by the law making power to 
secure the Claimant Indians in their treaty rights are : 

1. The provisions of Article 21 of the treaty of 1867, 
incorporated therein by the Senate, as an amendment, and 
the treaty sent back to the Indians for consent thereto. 

2. The provisions of the law of 1867. This being in line 
with the stipulation in Article 21 of the treaty of 1867. 

3. The provision of the law of 1882, designed as aid to 
compel them to accept what they insisted was an unjust ap- 
portionment of the annuities. 

4. The provisions of the law of 1884, to correct the in- 
justice. 

5. The provisions of the law of 1895, to investigate the 
claims and report thereon to Congress. 

6. The provision of the law of 1900, restoring to the 
chief in Iowa his annuity. 

Each and all of these laws had one and the same end in 
view. That end was to secure to the Claimant Indians their 
just rights under the treaties. They are laws in pari materia, 
and must be construed together to arrive at the legislative 
inlent. That intent was to secure to the Claimant Indians 
their full treaty rights ; not the reverse, as contended for by 
counsel, (pp. 48, 49.) 

The rules of interpretation laid down by the Supreme 
Court are as follows: 

"The correct rule of interpretation is, that if divers stat- 



22 



utes relate to the same thing, they ought all to be taken 
into consideration in construing any one of them, and it 
is an established rule of law, that all acts "m pari materia are 
to be taken together, as if they were one law." 

"When it can be gathered from a subsequent statute in 
pari materia, what meaning the legislature attached to the 
words of a former statute, they will amount to a legislative 
declaration of its meaning, and will govern the construction 
of the first statute." (Citation omitted.) 

"Whenever any words of a statute are doubtful or ob- 
scure, the intention of the legislature is to be resorted to, in 
order to find the meaning of the words." (Citation omitted.) 

"A thing which is within the intention of the makers oi 
the statute, is as much within the statute, as if it were with- 
in the letter." (Citation omitted.) 

United States vs. Freeman, 44 U. S., (3 Howard, 
564.) 

The clear intent of all of the laws on the subject is that 
the Sac and Fox Indians in Iowa shall have all of their 
treaty rights. That Department action denying their rights 
was clearly disapproved. The law of 1884, was for the un- 
doing of any injustice done by the law of 1882. It had 
been alleged to be unjust. It was found, by the proceedings 
under the law of 1884, to be unjust. Why should not the 
injustice be made good? 

It seems unnecessai-y to consume time and space in citing 
authorities to support the contention that Congress, by the 
Act of 1884, intended to disapprove whatever practice, or 
acts of the executive department that did injustice to the 
Indians of Iowa, and to which it had unwittingly given sanc- 
tion by the act of 1882. The purpose of the law of i88^is 
too apparent for doubt. 

Those members of the tribes in Oklahoma contended that 
some of the people in Iowa were not of Sac and Fox blood, 
but were members of the Pottawatomie, Winnebago, Chip- 
pewa, and other tribes settled among them ; they also desired 



23 

that no encouragement be given for any more of the tribe 
going to Iowa ; hence the conditions of the provisions of said 
law. 

The Department of the Interior had a census taken of the 
members of the tribe in Iowa, as compHance with the law 
of 1884; a delegation from the Oklahoma branch of the 
tribes was present, closely watched the progress of the work, 
and challenged every Indian applying for enrollment whom 
they suspected as not being of Sac and Fox blood. The 
Sacs and Foxes in Oklahoma knew what was meant by the 
words : "Original Sacs and Foxes now in Iowa," and they 
saw to it that only such were enrolled. 

The Commissioner of Indian Affairs reports on the mat- 
ter as follows : 

'T am glad to be able to report that the cause for dissatis- 
faction which has existed for several years between the 
branch of the Sac and Fox Indians residing in Iowa and 
the branch residing in the Indian Territory as to the correct 
division of their annuity moneys between the two bands 
has been finally removed, to the' satisfaction of all. Under 
the provisions of the last two acts making appropriations 
for the yearly interest due to them it was necessary to ascer- 
tain who the original Sac and Fox Indians were, at both 
points, and to divide their moneys accordingly. As this was 
a matter of great pecuniary interest to these people, ever}' 
possible care was exercised to obtain a correct census. Each 
band was notified in time, and allowed to be represented by 
a delegation of its headmen, accompanied by their attorney, 
at the taking of the census of the other band and by this 
means, and by a careful scrutiny of the returns in this office, 
a true census and a fair and honest division of the interest 
of each band in their general tribal funds, was obtained, to 
which both bands assent." 

(Annual report, Com'r. Indian Affairs, 1885, PP- 
XLIII and XLIV.) 

The enrollment thus made showed that there were in 
Iowa, 317 members of the tribes, each and all being of Sac 



24 

and Fox Indian blood. The enrollment of those in Okla- 
homa showed that they numbered only 513. 

(See Senate Mis. Doc. No. 48, p. 26.) 
(See Senate Doc. No. 167, p. 6.) 

The labored effort of counsel for the Oklahoma branch 
(pp. 44 to 49), to limit the treaty of 1867, and subsequent 
laws to only the Sacs and Foxes in Iowa in 1856, does not 
merit consideration. It only shows to what refinement of 
technicalities they feel compelled to resort. Congress, in the 
bill H. R. 1 01 33, indicated its own interpretation of the law 
and treaty provisions. 

The apportionments made between 1867 and 1884, both 
inclusive, appear, so far as can be ascertained, to have been 
made on the basis of 264 for those in Iowa, and 705 for 
those in Oklahoma. These figures are arrived at by calcu- 
lations based on the amounts apportioned to the two branch- 
es of the tribe. If correct, and the Indian Bureau records 
will show more certainly, the census made under the law of 
1884 showed that there were 53 more in Iowa, all of Sac 
and Fox blood and 192 less in Oklahoma. Nothing further 
was then necessary to establish the absolute justice of the 
complaint of the Iowa branch of the tribes, as to the injus- 
tice of the apportionments made to them from 1867, to 1884, 
inclusive. 

From and including 1885, much larger sums were appor- 
tioned to the Iowa branch, as their just shares of the annui- 
ties. But the errors of the previous years were never 
corrected. Nor have the apportionments for the years since 
1885, been made in accordance with the numbers of the 
respective branches of the tribes. Those in Iowa have in- 
creased annually since 1885, until in 1899 they are shown 
to have numbered 395, while those in Oklahoma have not 
shown such increase. 

(See Treasury report, H. R. No. 38, pp. 8-19.) 



25 

LAWS AND REGULATIONS FOR THE PAY- 
MENT OF ANNUITIES TO INDIANS. 

Counsel for the Oklahoma branch contend that the pay- 
ment of these claims, covering period prior to 1867, "would 
be a violation of regulations and established custom of the 
Interior Department," (p. 29.) ; to make it appear that the 
Commissioner of Indian Affairs had and has the right to 
dispose of the annuities of the tribes as he may see fit ; that 
he can make and execute regulations that will deprive the 
members of about one-half of a tribe of all rights in tribal 
annuities and other moneys, and give their money to other 
members of said tribe. 

The laws regulating the payment of annuities to Indians 
are as follows : 

The act of June 30. 1834, entitled "An act to provide for 
the organization of the Department of Indian Affairs," pro- 
vides : 

Sec. II. And be it further enacted. That the payment 
of all annuities or other sums stipulated by treaties to be 
made to any Indian tribe shall be made to the chiefs of such 
tribe, or to such person as said tribe shall appoint ; or if any 
tribe shall appropriate their annuities to the purpose of 
education, or to any other specific use, then to such person 
or persons as such tribe shall designate. (4 Stat. L., y^y.) 

The foregoing remained the law and regulation on the 
subject until the act of March 3, 1847, which provides: 

Sec. 3. Ajid be it further enacted. That the eleventh sec- 
tion of the "Act to provide for the better organization of the 
Department of Indian Affairs," approved June thirtieth, 
eighteen hundred and thirty-four, be, and the same is hereby, 
so amended as to provide that all annuities or other moneys, 
and all goods, stipulated by treaty to be paid or furnished 
to any Indian tribe, shall, at the discretion of the President 
or the Secretary of War, instead of being paid over to the 
chiefs, or to such persons as they shall designate, be divided 
and paid over to the heads of families and other individuals 



26 

entitled to participate therein, or, with the consent of the 
tril)e, be appHed to such purposes as will best promote the 
happiness and prosperity of the members thereof, under such 
reg-ulations as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of War, 
not inconsistent with existing treaty stipulations. (9 Stat. 
L., 203.) 

The next provision of law on the subject is found in the 
act of August 30, 1852. wherein the following is contained: 

Sec. 3. And be if further enacted. That no part of the 
appropriations herein made, or that may be hereafter made, 
for the benefit of any Indian or tribe, or part of a tribe of In- 
dians, shall be paid to any attorney or agent of such Indian, 
or tribe, or part of a tribe ; but shall in every case be paid 
directly to the Indian or Indians themselves to whom it 
shall be due, or to the tribe or part of a tribe per capita, 
unless the imperious interest of the Indian or Indians, or 
some treaty stipulation, shall require the payment to be 
made otherwise, under the direction of the President. 

Neither statutory inhibition nor treaty stipulation existed 
against the payment of annuities to these Indians. This was 
the law for the period from 1852 to 1876, and covers the 
period involved in the first claim. 

The next provision of law on the subject is found in the 
act of August 15. 1876, as follows: 

Sec. 2. That no supplies or annuit}^ goods, for which 
appropriation is made in this act. shall be issued to any band 
or tribe of Indians while the same may be engaged in hostili- 
ties against the United States or in depredations upon set- 
tlers; nor shall any sum of money appropriated by this act 
for any tribe of Indians for whom a reservation or territory 
shall have been made be paid to them or expended for their 
benefit unless such tribe and the warriors thereof shall re- 
main peaceably within the territory assigned to them, unless 
absent by the consent of the agent. (19 Stat. L.. 199.) 

More than nine years prior to the enactment of the last 
quoted provision of law the Sacs and Foxes of the Mississ- 
ippi in Iowa had received the sanction of Congress to remain 



27 

in that State, and they had received the sanction of the 
State to reside there twenty years before. 

The regulations of the Indian Department governing the 
payment of annuities to tribes are, as a rule, based upon the 
laws of Congress on the subject. No regulation has come 
under our notice in the examination of this matter that is in 
conflict with the law of August 30, 1852, and it is presumed 
that there are no such regulations in existence and that 
none so existed from 1853 to 1867. 

The existing regulation of the Indian Office for the pay- 
ment of annuities is as follows : 

154. Annuity funds, except where otherwise clearly indi- 
cated by treaty stipulations, must be divided and paid to 
the individual members of the tribe entitled to participate 
therein in equal shares per capita, heads of families receipt- 
ing for the amount due them, their wives, and the minor 
members of their families. * * * 

(See Reg. Ind. Office, 1894.) 

The executive departments of the government are not 
laws unto themselves; they are the means for the execu- 
tion of laws made by the law-making power of the land. 
When an executive department is empowered to make regu- 
lations for the execution of laws, those regulations, in so 
far as they transgress the laws, or exceed the powers for the 
making thereof, are of no validity or force. 

"The phrase "a regulation of an executive department" 
in an act of Congress should be understood as meaning gen- 
eral rules relating to the subject upon which a department 
acts, made by the head of a department under some act of 
Congress conferring power to make such regulations, and 
thereby giving to them the force of law. It does not include 
a mere order of the President or of a Secretary." 

(Harvey's case, 3 Ct. of Cls. 42.) 

Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, 2d ed. vol. 24, pp. 264-7.) 

There is no such sanctity in executive regulations as to 
prevent justice. "Justitia fiat coelum ruat." 



28 

When appropriations are made by Congress for fulfilling 
treaty stipulations with the various Indian tribes, the execu- 
tive department of the Government is not clothed with any 
such power as gives it warrant for depriving about one- 
half of the members of a tribe of their share in the annuities 
of the tribe, and giving their money to the other half of the 
tribe, any more than to give it to people of some other na- 
tionality. 

The Committee of Indian Affairs of the House of Repre- 
sentatives considered the question whether an Executive 
Department of the Government had the right or power to 
declare a forfeiture of the annuities of the Sac and Fox In- 
dians in Iowa, for the period from 1855 ^o 1866, inclusive, 
and concluded that it had not, citing a decision of the Su- 
preme Court in support of its holding on that point, and 
against "Executive" forfeiture. It also stated that it had 
failed to find any declaration of forfeiture by the judicial or 
the legislative department of the Government. (See p. 7, 
H. R. Rept. No. 3022.) 

(The New York Indians vs. The United States, 170 
U. S., 25.) 

The only other instance within the knowledge of the 
counsel for the Claimant Indians, and he professes some 
knowledge of the history of Indian Affairs, where the at- 
tempt was made to deprive a large portion of an Indian tribe 
of its annuities, in the absence of some treaty provision or 
law warranting such action, was the case of the stray bands 
of Pottawatomies and Winnebagoes, in Wisconsin. The 
main body of the tribe of Winnebagoes were in Nebraska, 
Those in Wisconsin went to the reservation in Nebraska 
under military escort, but left it in a few weeks, and re- 
turned to Wisconsin, where they remained as wanderers. 
An appeal was made to the Secretary of the Interior for the 
payment of their annuities there. The Secretary decided 
that the annuities would only be paid to Indians on the Ne- 



29 

braska reservation. His decision was dated September 17, 
1863. The full text of the decision will be found set out on 
page 25, of the report of the Secretary of the Interior. 
(Senate Doc. No. 167.) 

The matter was considered by Congress, and the act of 
June 25, 1864. (13 Stat. 172). was enacted, requiring that 
the money of said Indians be kept in the Treasury to their 
credit, subject to future action. The full text of the law will 
be found set out in the report. (H. R. Rept. No. 3022, p. 5.) 
There was failure on the part of the Department of the In- 
terior to observe that law; notwithstanding it, the money 
was all paid out to those Winnebagoes who were on the re- 
servation in Nebraska. When this situation was brought to 
the attention of Congress, on behalf of the Wisconsin Win- 
nebagoes, Congress, by the Act of January 18, 1881, (21 
Stat. 315), required the money so paid out, belonging to the 
Wisconsin Winnebagoes to be recouped from the annuities 
appropriated for the tribe, and that it be paid to the rightful 
Indians entitled to it. 

The case cited was one department action — not a custom 
or practice. The legislative action, following immediately 
after the department decision, disapproved the same. The 
former improperly disposed of the annuities of the Indians 
in Wisconsin, whose whereabouts were known to the de- 
partment. The latter directed that the moneys of the absent 
Indians be held to their credit in the Treasury, subject to 
future action. Which was the better practice? Which is 
the higher authority? Which should govern the Depart- 
ment? 

The treaty of 1859, with the Winnebagoes, had as its 
Article V, the same words exactly as are contained in Article 
7 of the treaty of 1859, with the Sacs and Foxes. (See 12 
Stat. 1 1 03). Yet Congress, by the Act of June 25, 1864, 
and January 18. 1881, as hereinafter shown, required that 
the annuities withheld from them be recovered and paid to 



30 

them. Congress simply followed the policy laid down in 
previous laws, in the provisions of the bill, H. R. 10133, 
passed to adjust the claims and causes of complaint in this 
case. 

It took years to recoup sufficient money to pay the Wiscon- 
sin Winnebagoes, under the law for the purpose, but it was 
finally accomplished, and the country has heard nothing of 
wrong to the Winnebagoes in Nebraska in the doing of it. 
If it was right for the Winnebagoes, why is it not right for 
the Sacs and Foxes? If Congress could, by legislation, so 
carefully considered as in that case, do justice to the Winne- 
bagoes, why can it not accomplish at least a measure of 
justice for the Sacs and Foxes, in the legislation passed by 
it for that purpose? 

It will not do credit to the intelligence of the officer 
charged with making the investigation in this case, to en- 
cumber this brief with any further consideration of the 
preliminary point that the Commissioner of Indian Affairs 
has power to make even a regulation that will divert the 
money of Indians for any purpose, or in any direction, not 
strictly warranted by some law or treaty provision. 

ANSWER TO THE PROTEST OF THE SAC AND 
FOX INDIANS IN OKLAHOMA. 

The protest made by the Oklahoma branch of the tribes, 
and submitted for them to the Congress by the Secretary of 
the Interior, will not be ignored. It served to stay the hand 
of the President from signing his approval to the bill, H.R. 
1 01 33, enacted by Congress, after the long and thorough 
investigation and consideration of the matter by the com- 
mittees thereof. 

The Sac and Fox Indians of Oklahoma, having full 
knowledge of the prosecution of these claims before Con- 
gress, took no steps to represent their side of the matter, 
until the investigation of the case had been completed by 



31 

the Committees ; they had left their interest to be looked 
after by the Department of the Interior, as they had been 
advised that it was abundantly able to do, and that they 
need not employ an attorney. They seemed not to be satis- 
fied with what had been done for them. Their protest was 
submitted to Congress. The Commissioner of Indian Af- 
fairs reported that he considered their request for a hearing, 
before final action on the bill, H. R. 10133, a reasonable 
one; and he called attention to a report made by his office 
on February 3, 1904, on a previous bill, S. 3459, 58th Con- 
gress, second session, wherein it was recommended that the 
Oklahoma branch of the tribes be given an opportunity to 
prepare and present protest against the proposed legislation. 
The Secretary of the Interior concurred in the recommen- 
dation. They had delay from 1900 to 1904. By protest 
made in 1903, they secured delay from 1904, to 1906, with- 
out availing themselves of the opportunity to present their 
side of the case. In their latest protest they seek to make 
it appear that they had no knowledge of the fact that the 
matter was under consideration before the Committees of 
Congress. They did have full knowledge of the proceed- 
ings before the Committees of Congress. They made a 
statement of their side of the case, through United States 
Indian Agent, Ross Guffin, on February 17, 1903, ad- 
dressed to Hon. F. M. Cockrell, U. S. Senate, who referred 
it to the Committee of Indian Affairs of the Senate, and a 
reply was made thereto by the Sac and Fox Indians in 
Iowa, a copy of which was furnished to the Honorable 
Commissioner of Indian Affairs, with letter of July 31, 
1903, from R. V, Belt, their counsel, with request that the 
same be served upon the Oklahoma branch of the tribes. 
They are usually well informed upon what goes on in Con- 
gress concerning them, and as bills, documents, resolutions, 
and reports have been printed as part of Congressional pro- 
ceedings in the matter, their suggestion of want of knowl- 



32 



edge of such proceedings are worthy of no consideration 
whatever. 

They next allege in their protest that, 
The Statements contained in the report, (Lacey Report, 
H. R. No. 3022). are not true. i 

/That the Iowa branch . . . received all the annui- 
ties to wliich they were entitled up to the year 1867, and 
that therefore there is nothing due them on the first claim 
1 hey msist that the Indians in Iowa returned to Kansas for 
tneir annuities, with one exception, up to the year 1867 
when they were separated from this tribe and received 
their annuities in Iowa." 

That is an allegation easily made ; it is one that might 
well cause hesitation by those not well informed on the 
matter, until the facts are presented. It is contended for 
and by the Iowa branch of the tribes that they have received 
nothing, in money or expenditures for their benefit, of the 
appropriations made by Congress for fulfilling treaty stipu- 
lations with the tribes, during the period from 1855 to 
1866, inclusive; that they did not go to Kansas for annui- 
ties; were not enrolled there or elsewhere for annuity pay- 
ments, and received no such payments in Kansas or else- 
where, for that period. The protestants have had since 
June 29, 1906, to "make good" their allegations. What 
have they attempted to show that was not already in the 
record before the Committees of Congress? Only that one 
Indian from Iowa appeared in Oklahoma in 1872, and 
drew his money at an annuity payment of that year. (pp. 
70, 71) Whether this be true or not, the records of the 
Indian Office will show. If it should be found true, the 
showing is somewhat like the little boy traversing a dark 
and lonely road, asserted when he reached home: "that a 
thousand dogs were after him." When he was pressed 
more closely for facts, finally confessed that "he heard one 
dog bark." If any of the names of the Iowa branch can be 



33 

pointed out as on any annuity roll, and as receiving- any 
payment of annuities, during that period, in Kansas, or 
elsewhere, the claim should be reduced to the extent of such 
payments shown. But the reduction should be from the 
whole amount found due claimant Indians, and not from 
the half which the vetoed bill proposed to allow. 

Allegations by one branch denied by the other, do not 
help to the solution of the matter. The records are ap- 
pealed to as proof of the contention of the Iowa branch of 
the tribes. They are the best evidence that can now be pro- 
duced as to what was done with the money comprising the 
annuities, and who got the benefit thereof. 

When the prosecution of these claims was first begun the 
counsel for the Iowa branch wrote to the Commissioner of 
Indian Affairs asking whether any portion of the annuities 
had been paid to those members of the tribes in Iowa, prior 
to 1867. In the reply made by Hon. D. M. Browning, Com- 
missioner of Indian Affairs, dated November 20, 1894, he 
said, 

"In reply to this interrogatory, I have to state that the 
records of this office fail to show that any annuities were 

paid to the Sacs and Foxes in Iowa prior to 1867 

From 1852 to 1867 the records of this office fail to disclose 
the fact that any expenditures were made for the Sacs and 
Foxes in Iowa." 

(See Senate Mis. Doc. No. 48, 53d. Congress, 3d, 
sess. p. II.) 

In the adverse report made on these claims to the Con- 
gress, by the Honorable Secretary of the Interior, the appeal 
from which is now being prosecuted, he makes this statement 
of facts : 

"In their first claim they ask for annuities from i8q^ to 
1867. ^-^ 

"The evidence presented by the memorialists and the rec- 
ords show that no part of this band reached Iowa on their 
return until about the winter of 1854 and 1855. 



34 

"The records show further that the pioneers of the band 
received their last annuities with the reservation Indians at 
the agency in Kansas in the latter part of 1854. 

''These were not upon the reservation after that date. 
They had abandoned it, and, so far as the records or evidence 
shows, never claimed, during the years named, any annui- 
ties that were paid out to the Sacs and Foxes upon the said 
reservation. * * ******* *." 

"Other small parties following in each of the years from 
1862 to 1866, inclusive. * * * * *" 

"It is doubtless a fact also that these later migrants, as 
did the pioneers of this band, received their annuities and 
all other treaty benefits up to the dates of their departure 
from the reservation." 

(See Senate Doc. No. 167, 54th Congress, ist ses. 
PP- 5-7-) 
The foregoing ought to be sufficient to establish the con- 
tention of the Iowa branch of the tribes. Further proof 
is found in their support in the report made by the Honor- 
able Secretary of the Treasury, responding to the resolution 
of the House of Representatives, for the detailed facts of the 
disbursements of the annuities, from the original accounts of 
the disbursements made thereof. That report shows that the 
whole of the amounts appropriated by Congress for fulfill- 
ing the treaty stipulations with the tribes, during the period 
from 1855, to 1866, inclusive, was paid to or expended for 
the branch of the tribes in Oklahoma, then residing in Kan- 
sas ; it gives the number of the Indians participating in the 
cash payments of the annuities for that period; there is 
nothing in that report showing or indicating that any of 
that branch of the tribes then residing in Iowa participated 
in said annuity payments, or the annuity moneys. 

(See H. R. Doc. No. 38, 57th Congress, ist ses. 
pp. 2-7.) 

See also above citation from report of Secretary of the 
Interior on subject. 



35 

Such conclusive evidence is sufficient to refute all allega- 
tions made to the contrary by the Oklahoma branch of the 
tribes, in support of which they have submitted nothing 
worthy of consideration. If the records of the Indian Bu- 
reau throw any light on the subject, the report to be made 
will show it. 

They next allege in their protest that, 
"there are not the number of Sauk and Fox Indians with the 
Iowa tribe that is claimed there are; that a large number 
which they claim are Sauk and Fok Indians are in fact mem- 
bers of other tribes, being renegades of the Winnebagoe, 
Omaha, Sioux, Chippewa, and other tribes, and that these 
were enrolled with the Iowa branch, and they now hold that 
these are members of the Sauk and Fox tribe." 

That allegation is a part of their stock in trade; they 
made it in 1884, before the Committees of the Congress, 
and in the law of that year, (supra), requiring payment 
annually to the Iowa branch of the tribes, "their per capita 
proportion" of the annuities, they secured incorporation 
of the provision : 

"That this shall apply only to original Sacs and Foxes 
now m Iowa to be ascertained bv the Secretary of the In- 
terior." 

The meaning of that law and the action taken under it 
have been hereinbefore sufficiently discussed and it has been 
shown that only Indians of the Sac and Fox blood were en- 
rolled ; the enrollment then made was satisfactory to the Ok- 
lahoma branch ; that proceeding should have forever closed 
their mouths against any such base allegation as is made 
in that protest, and elsewhere, against their brethren in 
Iowa. 

They next allege in their protest that the principal chief 
of the Foxes remained and died in Oklahoma. It seems un- 
necessary to follow that statement further, since the present 
chief of the Foxes asserts that he is the rightful princi- 



36 

pal chief of that tribe; he succeeded to the position in 
1 88 1. Since these claims have been in course of prosecution, 
his claim to the position has been recognized both by Con- 
gress and the Department of the Interior, after full con- 
sideration thereof, and payment to him of the annuity pro- 
vided by the treaty of 1842 for the principal chief of the 
Foxes was resumed under provision of the Indian Appro- 
priation Act of May 31, 1900, (31 Stat. 245.) He insists 
on the payments of all installments of the treaty annuity, 
withheld from 1855 to 1889, inclusive. 

They state that 

"The last principal chief of the Iowa Foxes died here in 
Oklahoma in 1890; that his name was Che-ko-shuk." 

Answer will be made to this further on when considering 
what counsel for the Oklahoma branch says on the same 
subject. 

They next allege in their protest, refering to the report 
of the Treasury Department, (H. R. Doc. No. 38), 

"I have to call attention to page 8 of said pamphlet. In 
the fourth quarter, 1869, there were 730 Indians enrolled 
with the Oklahoma branch. This about the time the Okla- 
homa branch removed from Kansas to Oklahoma. It is 
claimed that the 730 enrolled in the fourth quarter, 1869, 
included all the Indians of both branches, and that the 477 
enrolled during the second quarter, 1870, included only those 
who had removed to Oklahoma and were paid at this agency 
at that time. It is probable that this statement is true, since 
it is improbable that 253 Indians could have died in about 
six months. Of this number, however, almost 100 remain- 
ed behind in Kansas. These did not reunite with the Okla- 
homa branch until the second quarter, 1887, seventeen years 
afterwards, when 90 Indians are enrolled with the statement 
that they are Mokohoko's band. These Indians (I do not 
know the original number) received no annuities for the 
seventeen years they remained in Kansas, and have not 
been included in the number of Indians enrolled on any 
voucher during the years intervening. Consequently the 



37 

average number of Indians enrolled with the Oklahoma 
branch, which is given as 506 1-2 (p. 13 of the report of 
Mr. Lacey — H. Rept. No. 3022, 59th Cong., ist ses.), is in 
error. The average number of the Kansas-Oklahoma branch 
would probably be something over 550 had the Mokohoko 
band, which was in Kansas and whose numbers received no 
annuity, been included on the rolls." 

This whole allegation or statement is absurd. Some al- 
lowance might be made for it from the Indians; but how 
shall it be characterized when it said by the officer of the 
Government in charge of them, "It is probable that this 
statement is true?" That is what Superintendent Kohlen- 
berg says of it, in submitting the protest. He ought to have 
known, that from 1867 onward, the Iowa branch of the 
tribes has been under charge of an agent of the Govern- 
ment ; that he has had supervision of them ; that he has en- 
rolled them ; that he has paid to and expended for them such 
portion of the annuities as have been allowed to them since 
1867; that he has filed vouchers showing such disburse- 
ments ; and that the evidence of such facts were plainly be- 
fore Superintendent Kohlenberg, in the report of the Treas- 
ary Department, printed in H. R. Doc. No. 38, pp. 17-19, 
Exhibit C., from which he cited his alleged facts. It cannot 
be possible that he believed that the Iowa branch of the 
tribes could, in the manner indicated by him, secure pay- 
ments of annuities at both agencies, without detection by the 
Indian Bureau, or the Treasury Department, in the exami- 
nation of the disbursement vouchers, or otherwise. By such 
groundless statements the just claims under consideration 
have been sought to be beclouded, and the legislation for 
their adjustment delayed, and. if possible, prevented. 

However, the Iowa branch thank their brethren in Okla- 
homa for calling attention to the reduction of enrollment, 
from 730, in 1869, to 477, in 1870. The larger enrollment 
has never been reached since 1869. When the Indians re- 
moved from Kansas to Oklahoma, Mokohoko and his band 



did not go; they remained away from the Oklahoma reser- 
vation until 1887, about 17 years; when they rejoined those 
in Oklahoma, they numbered 90 souls, making the number 
in Oklahoma 528. That branch of the tribe has not main- 
tained much, if any numerical increase, since 1887. Super- 
intendent Kohlenberg reported their number, in 1904, as 
491. (See Indian Office annual report, 1904, p. 308.) The 
difference in numbers, between 730 in 1869, and the 477 and 
Mo-Ko-Ho-Ko's 90. in 1870, has never been accounted for. 
what became of the 163 unaccounted for? The Oklahoma 
branch had better solve that problem for themselves. Had 
they imposed on their agent, prior to 1870, and secured the 
"padding" of the roll, in order to further deprive their breth- 
ren in Iowa of their proportionate shares of the annuities, 
according to their numbers, as provided for by law ? They 
did not take the graves of their dead with them to Oklahoma. 
The Iowa branch of the tribes, recognizing that it is quite 
impossible at this late date, to account for all such discrepan- 
cies, have taken their stand on the record of disbursements as 
reported by the Treasury Department; and they ask that 
such measure of justice, at least, as those records show them 
to be entitled to, may be accorded to them. 

The claim is made that the number of Mokohoko's band 
should be counted as enrolled with the Oklahoma branch, 
during the seventeen years that band was absent from the 
Oklahoma reservation, so far as the adjustment of these 
claims is concerned. They denied to Mokohoko and his 
band any right, during such absence, to participate in the 
annuities paid in Oklahoma. Under Article 21 of the 
treaty of 1867, Mokohoko's band was not entitled to partici- 
pate in the annuities. They were no more entitled to be en- 
rolled for annuities in Oklahoma, than in Iowa. After re- 
uniting with those in Oklahoma, the Mokohoko band made 
claim for their annuities for the seventeen years they were 
absent from the reservation, and the claim was finally dis- 



39 

allowed, in accordance with the provision of Article 21 of 
the treaty of 1867. This final action was taken by Congress 
in a report by Hon. W. F. Vilas, former Secretary of the 
Interior. (See Senate Report No. 690, 52nd Congress, ist 
ses.) The attempt to use Mokohoko's band in this case is 
like other means used to deprive the Iowa branch of their 
proportionate share of the annuities, according to their num- 
bers. 

In their protest they say: 

"The Iowa branch has always been unruly and has 
always been in trouble with the Government on account of 
one thing or another." 

All through the brief of counsel for the Oklahoma 
branch, their clients are lauded as the best example of the 
only "good Indians." 

They and their counsel plead many virtues for the mem- 
bers of the Oklahoma branch, but can see no good in their 
brethren in Iowa, declaring them to be vagrants (p. 35), 
lawless, and recalcitrant, etc. (p. 19), whom they have sys- 
tematically robbed and spoiled, and to whom they now want 
justice denied. "Jiistitia virtutum regina." 

The notions of the Foxes in Iowa may not be as mine 
or as others as to what is best for their present and future 
welfare; but among that little remnant of the once power- 
ful tribe are found the best types and noblest specimens of 
the aboriginees of the American Continent. The peaceful 
conduct of those Indians, after returning to Iowa, and being 
there so many years without any supervision of or support 
by the United States, even out of their own treaty moneys, 
and their subsequent conduct, have justified the confidence 
in them, shown by the State of Iowa, in the generous and 
charitable action of its legislature in extending to them the 
welcome and authority to reside in the State. This act of hu- 
manity places that great commonwealth in an attitude, ex- 
ceptional, if not alone, in manifesting interest in and sym- 



40 

pathy for a people fast fading- from the earth, the small 
remnant of whom long to abide in the country of their an- 
cestors. 

We will not seek to draw comparisons between the two 
branches of the tribes ; but we would remind those in Okla- 
homa that there is one lesson they have yet to learn : 
"Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye 
even so to them." 

We pass over the matter of healthfulness of the two local- 
ities preferred by the two branches of the tribes for resi- 
dence, one in Kansas, and the other in Iowa ; and also, the 
comparison of the two branches of the tribes, discussed so 
fully by counsel for the Oklahoma branch, (pp. ii to 19). 
It is sufficient to say that the Confederated tribes, after 
moving from Iowa to Kansas, and numbering nearly 
2,500, show a rapid decrease in number. In 1852, they 
numbered 2,124; in 1853, 1,748, etc. Botli. branches now 
number less than 900, — those in Oklahoma a few over 500, 
and those in Iowa nearly 400; the former still decreasing, 
while the latter are increasing. 

AS TO DEDUCTIONS FROM ANNUITY APPRO- 
PRIATIONS, FOR THE OKLAHOMA BRANCH, 
BEFORE APPORTIONMENT. 

The claims of the Claimant Indians are for what they 
consider as belonging to them, under their treaties ; as be- 
longing to them as Sac and Fox Indians, of the Sac and 
Fox blood. They were unjustly apportioned amounts, in 
1867, on basis of 264 as their number. The cry then was 
that many of that number were alien Indians of other tribes 
that had taken up their abode with them. The careful cen- 
sus made under the law of 1884, showed that the Claimant 
Indians had abundant cause for complaint. It must be pre- 
sumed that the Indian Bureau has been careful, since the 
1884 census, to see that only those of the Sac and Fox blood 



41 

have been enrolled for annuity payments in Iowa. The labor- 
ed effort of counsel to make it appear that the Sac and Fox 
Indians in Iowa are claiming i share of the annuities for 
Indians of other tribes, (pp. 44 to 49), and at same time 
to limit the intent of the treaty of 1867, and tlie subsequent 
laws for presen-ing to the Sac and Fox Indians in Iowa their 
treaty rights; only to those in Iowa in 1856, merits no seri- 
ous consideration. 

As the enrollment of the Indians of both branches must 
be made each year, once at least, for annuity payments, the 
Iowa branch of the tribes can see no reason why the appor- 
tionment has not been made on the basis of the number thus 
ascertained. They have sought to have the Department of 
the Interior to correct the unequal apportionments made 
since 1885, but have failed. The bill, 10133, intended to 
adjust the claims arising from the unequal apportionments. 
When the apportionment was first made, after the numbers 
of the two branches were ascertained under the law of 1884, 
they urged their claim that nothing should be first deducted 
from the aggregate sum of the annual appropriations for an- 
nuities, for the special benefit of the Oklahoma branch of the 
tribe, before the apportionment was made, while the latter 
claimed that the following amounts should be annually de- 
ducted for their benefit, before the apportionment was made : 

For maintaining manual labor school, as required 

by treaty $5,000.00 

For national government of tribe, as required by 

treaty $5,000.00 

For physicians and medicines, as required by law. $1,500.00 

The Interior Department reports state that not more than 
an average of $1,150.00 were used annually for pay of 
physicians and for medicine, making, if that statement be 
correct, the total amount claimed for deduction for the ex- 
clusive benefit of the Oklahoma branch of the tribe before 



42 

the apportionment was made, $i 1,150.00; leaving for appor- 
tionment between the two branches, $39,850.00. 

The question of making such deduction before the appor- 
tionment, was considered by the Department, and the deci- 
sion first rendered was in favor of the Indians in Iowa, and 
for 1885 they received as their apportionment $18,380.00, 
and in 1886, $19,020.00. The matter was subsequently re- 
considered, and the decision rendered was against the In- 
dians in Iowa, and $7,600.40 was recouped from the In- 
dians in Iowa, as excess allowance in those two years, and 
said amount was restored to the Oklahoma branch of the 
tribe. The apportionments to the Iowa branch, since 1885, 
have been about $15,219.80 annually, out of the $51,000.00 
annual annuity appropriation. 

(See Senate Doc. No. 167, 54th Cong, ist ses. pp. 
7-8 and 13-14;) (see Senate Mis. Doc. No. 48, 
53d Cong. 3d. ses. p. 26) ; (see also Act of June 
10, 1896, 29 Stat. 331). 

If the first decision was wrong, it was right to correct it. 
If it was right to correct a wrong apportionment for the 
Oklahoma branch of the tribe, why is it not right to correct 
wrong apportionments for the Iowa branch of the tribe? 
The Indians in Iowa only want justice done to both branches 
of the tribe. 

There is some force in the contention that the first deci- 
sion was wrong, so far as concerns the $5,000.00 for manual 
labor school, since the treaty requires that it shall be main- 
tained on the reservation in Oklahoma. This was stated 
by counsel for the claimant Indians in arguing the case 
before the House Indian Committee. 

If any reason ever existed for the pretense of a "national 
government" for the Confederated Tribes at an expense of 
$5,000.00, it long since ceased to exist. The Confederation 
has only existed in name since 1855. The treaty of 1867, and 
the laws of that and subsequent years have established and 



43 

maintained the branch of the tribes in Iowa, they being 
Foxes. Those of the former Confederation, now in Okla- 
homa, comprising mainly, if not wholly, the Sacs, took 
their allotments of land, under agreement of February 13, 
189 1, (26 Stat. 749.) and in so doing became citizens of 
the United States under the provisions of the "General 
Indian Allotment Act," of February 8, 1887, (24 Stat. 
388.) They are now living on their allotments, in the midst 
of a community of advanced civilization, and subject to the 
same laws of the country as are other citizens of the United 
States. They are not within the limits of any existing 
Indian reservation. Anything like a "national government" 
for people so situated, seems entirely inconsistent with their 
present status, and unnecessary. It should not be permit- 
ted to longer exist, as a means for depriving those in Iowa 
of their just proportionate shares of the tribal annuities. 
The same reasoning and facts apply, with equal force, to 
the annual deduction of $1,500.00, or any portion thereof, 
from the tribal annuities for support of a physician, and for 
purchase of medicines. If those people need a physician 
and require medicines, they should do as those of Iowa do, 
call in a neighboring physician, or go to a neighboring drug- 
store, and get what they want, and pay for it out of their 
own moneys individually. The treaty of 1867 provided 
for those things for a period of five years; the stipulation 
therefor expired in 1875. Counsel for the Oklahoma 
branch treat it, no doubt unintentionally, as a present treaty 
stipulation, (p. 4.) Those in Oklahoma got the whole bene- 
fit of the money appropriated for the five years, under the 
treaty. Since 1875, they have urged that provision be made 
for the Physician and medicines, and on estimates made 
therefor by the Interior Department, Congress has annually 
provided in the Indian Appropriation Acts, under the pro- 
vision appropriating annuities for the Sac and Fox of 
Mississippi, 



44 

''That the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars of 
this amount shall be used for the pay of a physician, and 
for medicines." 

This action by Congress has been done without looking 
closely into the state of the matter to see whether in it any 
injustice was being done to any portion of the tribes con- 
cerned in the said annuities. If the members of the Okla- 
homa branch of the tribes are qualified to be citizens of the 
United States, there is no sufficient reason why the Govern- 
ment should see to the employment of a physician and pur- 
chase of medicine for them, and certainly not, in part, at 
the expense of those members of the tribes in Iowa. If 
any justification is found for making the deduction of said 
two sums, — $5,000.00 for "national government," and 
$1,500.00 or any part thereof, for pay of physician, and pur- 
chase of medicines, before the Oklahoma people became 
citizens of the United States, it thereafter ceased to exist. 
The Sacs and Foxes in Iowa ask that a stop be put to such 
injustice, and that their proportionate shares of the annui- 
ties so unjustly used in the past be recovered and paid to 
them. 

It is particularly within the province of the law-making 
power of the country to correct the evils complained of. 
The Congress of the United States can cease to provide 
in the acts making appropriations for the annuities of the 
trfbes, that any sums shall be used for pay of physicians 
and purchase of medicines. That would put a stop to that 
evil. The President, with the assent of Congress, is em- 
powered by a provision in the sixth article of the treaty of 
1859, to change any provision of that or previous treaties 
with the said tribes, to whatever extent may be considered 
"to be necesary and expedient for their welfare and 
best interests." Congress gave its assent as hereinafter 
shown in the vetoed bill, H. R. 10133, for the discontinu- 
ance of the provision requiring the expenditure of $5,000.00 



45 

annually for a "national government" of the tribes, having 
concluded that the maintenance of such pretended "national 
government" is not necessary; that it is maintained to the 
serious detriment of a large portion of said tribes; and 
that the discontinuance of it is "necessary and expedient for 
the welfare and best interests of both branches of said 
tribes." It also at same time provided against further de- 
duction for pay of physician and for medicines. 

If no provision were found in any treaty warranting the 
discontinuance of the said "national government," it may 
be discontinued by the proper authority of the United 
States, as the treaty providing for it, states only that it 
"may" be so maintained. Its maintenance is discretionary 
with a wise guardianship of the Indians. 

Further, the power to change a treaty with an Indian 
tribe is in the Government of the United States as has been 
decided repeatedly by the courts of the country. 

"The power exists to abrogate the provisions of an Indian 
treaty, though presumably such power will be exercised 
only when circumstances arise which will not only justify 
the Government in disregarding the stipulation of the treaty, 
but may demand, in the interest of the country and the 
Indians themselves, that it should do so. When, therefore, 
treaties were entered into between the United States and a 
tribe of Indians it was never doubted that the power U) 
abrogate existed in Congress, and that in a contingency 
such power might be availed of from considerations of 
governmental policy, particularly if consistent with perfect 
good faith towards the Indians." 

(Lone Wolf, Principal Chief of the Kiowas, v. 

Ethan A. Hitchcock, Secreatry of the Interior, 

et al. 187 U. S. 553.) 

DEFENSE DECLINE DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS 
ON FACTS AND MERITS. 

The learned counsel for the Oklahoma branch, after dis- 
cussing the two large claims, and making the vain attempt 



46 

to show that their payment would be contrary to the pro- 
visions of treaties and laws, provided, of course, their own 
construction and interpretation of those treaties and laws 
be accepted, close their effort as follows : 

"We believe we have shown this and the other claims to 
be entirely without foundation either in law or morals; it 
has not seemed, therefore, either necessary or proper to en- 
cumber this argument with a mass of figures as to the num- 
ber of Indians in the Iowa band at various periods as coun- 
sel for Claimant Indians has seen fit to do in his memorials." 

We contend that this is a clear dodging of the real matter 
to be investigated under the special instructions of the 
President. 

We are indebted to counsel for the contents of the letter 
of the Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs, to the Presi- 
dent, dated June 28, 1906, wherein it is said he stated, 

"that if it should be developed by the investigation now being 
had that the claims of the Iowa Sac and Fox Indians were 
meritorious as set forth in H. R. 10,133, that the office would 
recommend its passage." 

The President informed Congress, in his veto message 
that, 

"I have directed the Acting Commissioner of Indian Af- 
fairs to have an immediate and thorough investigation made 
of the matter in accordance with the concluding paragraph 
of his letter of June 28." 

In the appeal to Congress, the Claimant Indians insisted 
that the Secretary of the Interior did not investigate the 
claims, as required by the act of 1895, but based his adverse 
report on technical construction of treaties and laws. 

In the protest made by the Oklahoma branch against the 
bill, (H. R. 10,133,) (H. R. Doc. No. 805,) they alleged 
that the statements and arguments set forth in the Lacey 
Report, (H. R. 3022) are not true; and they begged for 
time to show that they were not true. They had the great 



47 

weight and influence of the Interior Department in their be- 
half, and they secured a veto of the bill, with a summons to 
show that the Lacey report is not true. What have they 
shown? Nothing but a reargument of the same rules of con- 
struction and interpretation of treaties and statutes, against 
which the Claimant Indians had protested, when used by the 
Secretary of the Interior. 

The facts set out in the Lacey report are ignored, except 
to state what it proposed to accomplish, (pp. 4, 5 of brief.) 
The main part of the brief is occupied in discussing matters 
ruled against the Claimant Indians, in the report of the 
House Indian Committee. The Claimant Indians secured 
further delay, and have employed able counsel. The sum- 
mer is gone, and the winter well advanced, when they come 
with a paper wherein they refuse to traverse the facts, and 
figures which they alleged were not true. They not 'only 
dodge the facts, but they have made no attempt to challenge 
the correctness of the calculations made in the Lacey report. 
That report is based upon the data from the original ac- 
counts of the disbursements made by the Agents, and at the 
Treasury, of the annuities of the tribes. (H. R. Doc. No. 
38.) The correctness of the calculations made, and of the 
account stated in the Lacey report must, therefore, be ac- 
cepted as correct. They are correct. 

The Treasuiy report, (H. R. Doc. No. 38), shows the ex- 
tent of the injustice done to the Iowa branch of the tribes, 
from 1855, to 1899, inclusive. Any competent bookkeeper 
can make the calculations and state the account, and thereby 
show the proper balances. The account stated is not chal- 
lenged, and being correctly stated, further time for a re- 
statement seems unnecessary. Surely if it contained any 
inaccuracies, they would have been pointed out by counsel, 
in compliance with the promise to show that the Lacey re- 
port is not true. 

Congress, by legislation, adjusted the claims of the Wis- 



48 

consin Winebagoes. It was done as right and justice re- 
quired, and has stood without criticism. Surely the com- 
mittees of Congress are no less competent now, and no less 
possessed with the spirit of justice. The spirit of considera- 
tion and equity manifested in the Lacey Report toward the 
Oklahoma branch of the tribes, in trimming the considera- 
tion of the claims down to only the amounts of the annuities 
paid out in cash per capita payments, leaving to the Okla- 
homa branch, untouched, the nearly half million of treaty 
moneys expended for them exclusively, can be viewed in no 
other light than the exhibition of extreme liberality toward 
them. But when the committee went further, and after 
ascertaining that the Claimant Indians should have received, 
in the period from 1855, to 189Q, the sum of $198,334.19 
more in cash per capita payments than they did receive, de- 
cided on further grounds of equity toward the Oklahoma 
branch, that they should not be called upon to pay more 
than one-half of that sum to the Claimant Indians, they 
strained the qualities of mercy. This generous treatment of 
their clients found in counsel no other response than that 
the committee, 

"by some rather subtile reasoning, determined to reduce 
each of the first two items by one-half." 

No, the counsel will not go into the figures and facts. 
They constitute a part of the record that they refuse to dis- 
cuss. Well they may; for therein and thereby is their un- 
doing. 

PAY OF TREATY ANNUITY UNDER TREATY 
OF 1842, TO THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF OF 
THE FOXES. 

Counsel (p. 50) quotes the fourth article of the treaty 
of 1842, providing for payment of $500, annually to "each 
of the principal chiefs of the Sacs and Foxes" out of the an- 



49 

nuities of the tribes," to be used and expended by them for 
such purpose as they may think proper, with the approbation 
of their agent," and contend that the payment of the money 
to said chiefs is ''subject to the approbation of their agent;" 
while we contend that it is not the payment of the money 
that is so subject, but the manner of its use and expenditure. 
It was not intended by the treaty that the agent should de- 
termine whether the chiefs should receive the money; but 
that he should see to it that it was not used for improper pur- 
poses, to debauch the Indians, make war upon whites, or in 
other ways contrary to the purposes of his supervision. 

After thus discussing the fourth article of the treaty of 
1842, counsel then state: 

"The above applies only to the claim up to 1867. From 
this date to 1900 the claim is predicated upon the nintli 
article of the treaty of 1867." (p. 51.) Which article they 
there cite. 

The counsel failed to read very closely the claim for the 
annuity for the principal chief of the Foxes, as stated in 
the memorial to Congress, (Senate Doc. No. 64, 57th Con- 
gress, 2d ses., p. 20.) It is there stated as follows: 

"The whole period claimed for is from 1855 to the date 
of restoration of the payments. To 1900 would be forty- 
five years, and $500 annually makes the aggregate amount 
of this claim $22,500." 

"The payment of this sum is provided for in the treaty 
of 1842, as follows:" 

Then follows the quotation of the fourth article of the 
treaty. The provisions of Article 9 of the treaty of 1867, 
are then discussed, and the statement made that, 

"The Treasury report shows that the money has been paid 
out, but it is claimed by the Claimant Indians that the pay- 
ments have not been made to the principal chief of the 
Foxes, who resides among them" 



50 

What claims the Claimant Indians made for chief, under 
the stipulations of Article 9 of the treaty of 1867, is em- 
braced in their contention that they should have their pro 
rata share, according to their numbers, of the $5,000.00 for 
"national government." If counsel had given more atten- 
tion to the official data contained in the Treasury report, 
(H. R. Doc. No. 38), and had discussed the facts and 
figures therein contained, they would have seen that more 
than $1,000 annually was paid to chiefs, for a considerab/e 
portion of the time covered by said report. Such payments 
were made under both of the treaties — 1842 and 1867. The 
unintentional misconception of counsel, on this point, carried 
them into quite a discussion on the matter, (pp. 51 to 54) 
which requires no further consideration. 

Counsel calls attention to the affidavit of Chief McKosito, 
(pp. 57, 69 to 72), setting out that Maw-Men-Wau-Me- 
Cah, the chief of the Foxes, was in Kansas in 1861, and 
drew his annuity, as did others that immediately thereafter 
left for Iowa. The fact that Chief Maw-Men Wau-Me-Cah, 
of the Foxes, drew one installment of annuity in Kansas, 
in the fourth quarter of 1861, is shown by the original dis- 
bursing accounts of Agent C. C. Hutchison, for that year, 
as set out in the Treasury report, (H. R. Doc. No. 38, p. 6.), 
The fact that the Indians who left Kansas for Iowa, at dif- 
ferent times, drew, or were supposed to have drawn annui- 
ties up to the time of their departure, is abundantly shown, 
and is fully allowed for in all of the computations made in 
the account stated by the House Indian Committee, in that 
they allowed for 160 in Iowa from 1855 to 1862, and only 
225 from 1863 to 1866. The House Indian Committee did 
not think the principal chief should recover his annuity un- 
der the treaty of 1842, prior to the date of his claim there- 
for. Hence no discussion is found in the report, (H. R. 
Report, No. 3022) as to the payment made to the principal 
chief, in 1861. The affidavit of Push-E-Ten-Neke-Oue, 



51 

present principal chief of the Foxes, in Iowa, that the form- 
er principal chief came to Iowa, in 1862, and assumed the 
position of chief and held it until he died, in January, 1881, 
when his son was elected and acted as chief until the fall of 
same year, when he died, and he, Push-E-Ten-Neke-Que, 
was elected as chief, and has occupied the position to this 
time. (H. R. Doc. No. 38, pp. 24, 25.) When the princi- 
pal chief of the Foxes left Kansas, he took with him his 
office ; when that office has become vacant, it has been filled 
according to the custom of the tribe. The present occupant 
is the principal chief of the Foxes. This fact has been 
shown so clearly and satisfactorily, in the prosecution of 
these claims, that Congress has not waited for the final con- 
clusion thereof, before restoring to Push-E-Ten-Neke-Oue 
the payinent of his treaty annuity. The treaty of 1842 pro- 
vides for payment to only two principal chiefs, one for the 
Sacs and one for the Foxes. Counsel could not refrain 
from a construction of the law restoring to the chief his an- 
nuity payments, and calls attention to the fact that the law 
says it is "during his natural life." That it does not pro- 
vide for his successor. Congress may be depended upon to 
provide for any injustice that may be done to his successor. 
If Push-E-Ten-Neke-Oue is entitled to the annuity now, 
under the treaty of 1842, he was just as much entitled to it, 
during the period from 1881, to 1899. The reducing of his 
claim to $1,000, giving him annuity for only two years 
of that period, was another exhibition of extremist liberality 
on part of the House Indian Committee toward the Okla- 
homa branch of the tribes. 

SENDING THE CASE TO COURT OF CLAIMS 
ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY. 

Counsel urge in their brief, (pp. 62 to 68) reference of 
the claims to the Court of Claims. Their main argument for 
such reference is that the Sac and Fox Indians in Iowa will 



52 

not be satisfied with any settlement or adjustment made 
otherwise. They refer to an affidavit of "Chief McKosito," 
appended to their brief, (pp. 69 to 72) wherein it is stated 
that he and "Second Chief Moses Keokuk, who were in 
Washington, as a delegation from the Oklahoma branch, 
in 1896, when the Secretary of the Interior was considering 
the report to be made to Congress on these claims, in ac- 
cordance with the law of 1895, that, 

"when it was determined to pay the Iowa Indians the sum 
of forty-two thousand, eight hundred and ninety-three and 
25-100, (42,893.25) dollars, this deponent and all his people 
on the Indian Territory reservation withdrew all opposition 
thereto with the understanding had with the Bureau of In- 
dian Affairs that the Iowa Sac and Foxes would not there- 
after make any claim for funds or annuity." Deponent says 
that said Second Chief (Moses Keokuk) has since died but 
that he had frequently talked it over with him and knows 
that it was his understanding as herein stated, as well as 
that of deponent. 

Well, that is a fair specimen of the opposition made to 
these just claims, and the methods resorted to prevent the 
adjustment of them. 

Let us see what we can produce as matter of record on 
the subject. 

The Secretary of the Interior did say in his report to Con- 
gress, made in 1906: 

"The Oklahoma Sacs and Foxes, through their delegates 
Mah-ko-sha-toe and Moses Keokuk, also filed protest against 
the said finding, but have since, orally, through the delegates 
named, now in this city, withdrawn their objections to the 
aforesaid statement of account." 

(See Senate Doc. No. 167, p. 2.) 

As soon as that report was printed as a Congressional 
Document, the said delegates made haste to protest against 
the statement in it, as above set forth. They had a protest 



53 

prepared, and presented to the Secretary of the Interior* 
quoting- therein the alx)ve statement, and saying therein as 
to it : 

"We beg to say that we never intended to withdraw our 
protest. You misunderstood us. We were sent by our peo- 
ple on purpose to protest. We would have no right to with- 
draw It. We did not mean to tell you that we had with- 
drawn It. We would not be true to our people if we acted 
in that way." 

In more emphatic language of the same sort they insisted 
that they still objected to payment of anything on any of 
the claims. And they said, 

"We ask you to say to Congress that you made a mistake. 
J hat in our talk with you we did not withdraw our protest." 

The Secretary of the Interior promptly submitted their 
paper to the Congress for its information. 

(Senate Doc. No. 196, 54th Cong., ist ses.) 

The records show that the statements in the affiidavit are 
not true ; the records are a flat contradiction of the affiant 
himself, by himself. The value of the remainder of the 
affidavit may be measured accordingly. The Iowa branch 
made no such stipulation, nor had any such understanding. 
They had no delegation here at the time. Their own attor- 
neys were not parties to any such compact. 

Another affidavit attached to brief of counsel for the Okla- 
homa branch is that of Jonas H. McGowan, (pp. 75 to 78), 
wherein he swears that "he had previously, and during the 
life time of the late Chief Keokuk, acted as attorney for 
said tribe." (p. 76.) As that affiant is the senior member 
of the firm now counsel for the Oklahoma Sacs and Foxes, 
it cannot be possible that he acted as the attorney for the 
delegation of 1896. especially in the matter of preparing 
the last mentioned paper by them ; though he did appear be- 



54 

fore the Senate Indian Committee, or a sub-committee 
thereof, at that time in their behalf. He evidently had no 
knowledge of the existence of that tell-tale paper. But what 
can be said of counsel's star witness, Chief McKosito, first 
among his "sober, sedate, intelligent and honest men." 

Counsel attached no importance to the statement of facts 
set out in the affidavit of Chief of the Foxes, Push-E-Ten- 
Neke-Que, (p. 60), as set out in H. R. Doc. No. 38, pp. 25, 
26, not one of which statements did they challenge or refute. 
With their own opinion of the testimony of the latter, and 
the showing above made as to the value of the testimony of 
their principal witness, they surely will revise their own opin- 
ion on this matter, and conclude with the counsel for the 
Claimant Indians that these claims can be more safely and 
satisfactorily adjusted upon the data furnished from the ac- 
counts of the officers and agents who made the disburse- 
ments of the annuities, than upon the testimony of the In- 
dians of the contending branches of the tribes. 

WHAT THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF DIS- 
BURSEMENTS SHOW. 

The facts furnished by the Secretary of the Treasury, in 
compliance with the resolution of the House of Representa- 
tives, and set out in H. R. Doc. No. 38, 57th Congress, ist 
session, is the oificial data compiled from the original ac- 
counts of the agents who disbursed the annuities of the Con- 
federated tribes of the Sac and Fox Indians of the Missis- 
sippi, and similar data from claims and accounts for sup- 
plies, etc., paid at the Treasury Department, covering the 
period from 18^^ to i8pp, inclusive. 

The Committee on Indian Affairs, House of Representa- 
tives, considered the appeal of the Claimant Indians, with 
the official data thus secured before them, during the 57th 



55 

and 58th Congresses, and the ist session of the 59th Con- 
gress, by two sub-committees, and in the full Committee. 
The attorney for the Claimant Indians was heard frequently, 
and at length, orally and in writing. Reports from the In- 
terior Department were requested, received, and considered 
by the Committee. After such full, thorough, and careful 
investigation and consideration, the report of the Com- 
mittee, (H. R. Report, No. 3022) was made. It was found 
that the Treasury report showed the following facts: 

I. That during the period from 18 jj to 1866, inclusive, 
the members of the tribes residing in Kansas, (now in Okla- 
homa) received in cash and benefits, every cent of the money 
disbursed from the appropriations for fulfilling treaty stipu- 
lations with the Confederated tribes as follows: 

"Disbursed by Ofiicers from January i, 1855 
to December 31, 1866, as shown by Ex- 
hibit "A'' herewith $840,137.19." 

"Net expenditures on account of claims. . . . 37,640.51." 



"Total expenditures, Jan. i, 1855, to De- 
cember 31, 1867 (?) (6) $877,777.70." 

(See H. R. Doc. No. 38. pp. 3 and 6-7.) 

Of that sum they were paid in cash per capita payments 
the sum of $694,290.15. 

That the average of their numbers for said period, receiv- 
ing said cash per capita payments appeared as follows : 

From 1855 to 1862. inclusive 1*323 

From 1863 to 1866, inclusive 880 

(Ibid., pp. 6-7.) 

That the average of the number of the Iowa branch of 
the tribes, during the same period, as held by the Secretary 



56 

of the Interior in report to the Secretary of the Treasury, 
appeared as follows : 

From 1855 to 1862, inclusive 160 

From 1863 to 1866, inclusive 225 

(Ibid., 20-21.) 

(The Claimant Indians contended that their numbers 
averaged more during said period, but, appreciating that 
the Congress would be disposed to follow the figures re- 
ported by the Interior Department, they have based their 
calculations upon those figures.) 
(Ibid., 21-26.) 

The committee found that the apportionment among the 
two branches of the tribes, of the sum of $694,290.15, paid 
to the Oklahoma branch in cash per capita payments, would 
result as follows : 

To the Oklahoma branch. 1855 to 1862 $501,566.87 

To the Oklahoma branch, 1863 to 1866 $115,173.15 

Total $616,740.02 

To the Iowa branch, 1855 to 1862 $60,658.13 

To the Iowa branch. 1863 to 1866 26,892.00 

Total $87,550.13 

Deduct amount received in 1865, as reported. 5.339-o6 

Leaving the balance as the amount of the first 

claim $82,211.07 

It is manifest, of course, that the apportionment of the 
zvhole sum of %'&77,777-70, of the tribal annuities and other 
moneys disbursed exclusively for the benefit of the Okla- 
homa branch of the tribe, during said period, between the 
two branches of the tribes according to their numbers would 
result in giving to the Iowa branch of the tribe a much 



57 

larger sum than $82,211.07. The Committees of Congress, 
however, conUned the consideration of the claims before 
them, to sums paid out only in cash per capita payments, 
leaving all other treaty moneys disbursed, to the Oklahoma 
branch, for whom they were expended. 

(See H. R. Report No. 3022, pp. 7-9.) 

That the Treasury report further shows : 

2. That during the period from 1867 to 1899, (the 
Treasury report not having been brought down later than 
1899), the whole amount of moneys disbursed from the ap- 
propriations made by Congress for fulfilling treaty stipula- 
tions with the said confederated tribes of Sac and Fox In- 
dians of the Mississippi, was as follows : 

For the Oklahoma branch. (Stated as "Kansas branch.") 

Disbursed by officers from January i, 1867 to 
December 31, 1899, as shown by Exhibit 
"B" herewith $1,430,387.30 

Total expenditures on account of claims 54,791.63 

Total $1,485,178.93 

That of said sum they were paid in cash per 

capita payments, the amount of $943,618.27 

For the Iowa branch. 

Disbursed by officers from January i, 1867 to 
December 31, 1899, as shown by Exhibit 
"C." $449,692.28 

Total on account of claims 1,544.42 

Total $451,236.70 

That of said sum they were paid in cash per 

capita payments, the sum of $448,337.50 

(See H. R. Doc. No. 38, pp. 2-19.) 
That the average of the numbers of the two branches of 



58 

the tribes during said period from 1867 to 1899, inclusive, 
was as follows : 

For the Oklahoma branch of the tribes 5065/2 

For the Iowa branch of the tribes 345/^ 

That the total amount paid in cash per capita 
payments to both branches of the tribes 
during that period, was $Ij39I '955-77 

The committee found on such official data that, according 
to the numbers of the two branches of the tribes, the Iowa 
branch should have received more in cash per capita pay- 
ments, during said period from 1867 to 1899, inclusive, to 
the extent of $116,123.12. 

It is manifest, in this case also, that if the whole amount 
of the tribal moneys had been apportioned between the two 
branches of the tribes during said period, the Iowa branch 
would have been awarded a much larger sum than was re- 
ported for them by the committee; but the committee con- 
fined the consideration of the Second claim also to the 
amounts paid out in cash per capita payments only. 

In the same period the Oklahoma branch got in benefits, 
nearly $500,000.00, while the Iowa branch got in benefits, 
less than $3,000.00. 

(See H. R. Report No. 3022, pp. 9-13.) 

The report made by the Treasury Department failed to 
show that the principal chief of the Foxes had been paid 
the annuity of $500.00 stipulated for him in the treaty of 
1842, for the period from 1855 to 1899, inclusive, except 
the one payment of $500.00 to Maw-Mem-Wau-Ne-Cah in 
fourth quarter, 1861. (H. R. Doc. No. 38, p. 6.) 

WHAT THE VETOED BILL WAS INTENDED 
TO ACCOMPLISH. 

The Congress found that the Sac and Fox Indians, in 
Iowa, had just causes of complaint ; that they had been dis- 



59 

criminated against in the distribution of the annuities of 
the tribes; that they had no jurisdictional status in any 
courts of the country in which they might bring suit for re- 
dress of their grievances ; that the matter absolutely required 
legislation by Congress ; and, as that body had all the neces- 
sary information on the subject, m the report of the Treas- 
ury Department, it was able to so legislate as to adjust the 
whole matter. The effect of the vetoed bill, H, R. 10133, as 
intended by Congress, was as follows: 

1. That, in future, no deductions shall be made from the 
annual amount of $51,000.00, appropriated for fulfillment of 
the treaty stipulations with the confederated tribes of Sac 
and Fox Indians of the Mississippi, before the apportion- 
ment between the two branches of the said tribes is made, 
except the $5,000.00 for the manual labor school, or so much 
thereof as may be necessary therefor. 

2. That, after the deduction of said sum of $5,000.00, or 
so much thereof, as may be necessary for said manual labor 
school, the remainder of said sum of $51,000.00 annually 
appropriated, shall be annually apportioned between the two 
branches of the said tribes, according to their numbers, to 
be ascertained by the annual enrollment of them. 

3. That no allowance be made to the Sacs and Foxes in 
Iowa, for the deductions heretofore made for "national gov- 
ernment" of the tribes, and for pay of physician and pur- 
chase of medicine, for the exclusive benefit of the Oklahoma 
branch of the tribes, but that no such deductions shall here- 
after be made before apportionment. 

4. That for the adjustment of the claims for the period 
from 1855 to 1899, inclusive, only the amounts of the annui- 
ties paid out in cash per capita payments he considered ; and 
that because of discrimination against them in such payments 
the Sac and Fox Indians of Iowa did not receive what they 
were entitled to receive, according to their numbers, as fol- 
lows : 

From 1855 to 1866, inclusive $82,211.07 

From 1867 to 1899, inclusive $116,123.12 

Total $198,334.19 



6o 

That for further considerations of equity toward the 
Oklahoma branch of the tribes, only one-half of said sum of 
$198,334.19, should be allowed and paid to the members of 
the tribe in Iowa. 

5. That the principal chief of the Foxes, in Iowa, should 
be allowed and paid, in full, of his claim, the sum of $1,000. 

The Sac and Fox Indians in Iowa felt that the limiting 
of their claims by the committee, to the consideration only 
of the portions of the annuities that were paid out in cash 
per capita payments, was rather drastic treatment of the 
matter. They do not feel, in view of such treatment, that 
there are any sufficient grounds of equity, or otherwise, war- 
ranting allowing them only one-half of the sum of $198,- 
334.19 so found due to them. They think, also, that the 
claim of the principal chief of the Foxes should have been 
for the full amount shown by the Treasury report to have 
been withheld from him. The present principal chief has 
occupied the position since 1881. 

They, however, do appreciate that the motive of extreme 
consideration manifested in the report of the Committee to- 
ward the Oklahoma branch, were, very largely prompted 
by the fact that those Indians were not wholly responsible 
for the conditions existing, as the moneys were not dis- 
bursed by them, but by the guardian of both branches of 
the tribes; and that in view of that fact, the committee 
sought to do some measure of justice to the Claimant In- 
dians, while not too seriously embarrassing those of the 
Oklahoma branch. 

We have not deemed it necessary to consider the many 
references and citations from the annual reports of the 
Indian Bureau; nor to discuss the opinions expressed in 
particular reports of that Bureau on bills in Congress con- 
cerning this matter. The President wants the facts. He 
has called for an investigation and report thereon. Those 
facts are now before the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in 



B D 1 4. 8 



6i 

the Treasury report, (H. R. No. 38), and in the additional 
report, bringing them down to date. The Commissioner 
of Indian Affairs, charged with making a report thereon to 
the President, will make that report on the facts now before 
him, regardless of any opinions heretofore expressed by 
the Department on the matter, when those facts were not 
present, or considered. 

Where the facts are all so well established, binding as 
to the Indians, and binding as to the administration of the 
guardianship of the Indians, and where the Committees of 
Congress have practically construed all provisions of trea- 
ties and laws, with utmost liberality, in favor of the Okla- 
homa branch of the tribes, nothing further seems necessary, 
except to state the account of the amount to which the 
Claimant Indians are justly entitled to recover, and to ask 
Congress to insert that amount in the bill, H. R. 10133, and 
re-enact the same, and thus close the matter forever. 

Where the road to justice is so plain, why should justice 
be delayed? For justice we pray; for justice without fur- 
ther delay. 

Respectfully submitted, 

R. V. BELT, 
Attorney for Sac and Fox Indians in Iowa, 

Washington, D. C, 416 Bond Building. 

December 19, 1906, 









,,^- '>0' 



^. 



<4jjy.^' ■* 



I s A. 









° <L* •r<^ 



^ O. 




„^ 






.0' 






r 









J: 






■rV 



^\ "^^ n* °Vl^J^lkt' "1 



^~> i ^-«^ 



^^;:^^ ^. 






'^,-^a..^~'3r*>^ 



"^ 



\ V . . . . „ „ -^^ A V 






« o 



1-J^ 



-Jy^ 



<^ 



■^■^ 



■^^^-^^ '^... -^r ^J^^'^^^. ^*, /. 



■t. 



<P-^ 3 K 



=^.it:^ '*-,■' 






■^^. 






A 










■^ - 












»^ 










.4 o 



0' 



'^^0^ ^ 



•o. ^^ 






. %" s • • , '^r 



-b 



o V 






^;i§fe \y :^.^' \ / .>^k o \,^^' :^^ \ 

' • • * ^0 o 'o , . " A. <'^ ^ . . 5 '• G o 'o . - A. 







^^. . ^ LIBRARY BINDING .\ ..T^xVVr-A .. 1^ G ^*^> .-7^7^_ ' O ,lt>- . -- 



5L (S D03BSBR0S. ^^ 

O, . ^ LIBRARY BINDING , 

J- 



.K 



•1 o^ 









^A- >^^. 



